Why is PC gaming considered better?

Randall Flagg

Worst of the best
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
45,063
Location
Gorey
I have never understood this, although I’ve not played a game with the exception of FM on my PC or Lap Top. And I never will because neither have specs that can handle most games released these days. But also I don’t think I would be any good using a keyboard and mouse rather than a controller.

I have heard plenty swear by gaming on PC’s, and I was just reminded after reading through the Fallout 3 thread and a good few in there said get it on PC rather than Xbox for best experience.

I would have always assumed consoles were better seeing as that is their sole purpose.
 
Don't even know where to begin on this, so I'll summarise it with a few points:

1) The Keyboard + Mouse setup is actually an advantage and lets you customise controls to your hearts content. Besides any true fan of FPS or RTS games for instance will tell you that you can only really play them properly on a Key and Mouse. Nowadays you can even plug in a 360 controller for most games if you so wish to.

2) Modding community: You can play around so much with tools to make mods which increase longetivity of games. In fact if you have a decent PC there's no reason to ever purchase games like Fallout 3 for the consoles considering the heaps of mods available, most of which enhance the gaming experience.

3) A more mature community. If you game online regularly on both the PC and consoles, you'll notice a huge difference in maturity of the gamers. While PC gaming does have it sad examples such as WoW community, its safe to say their maturity shadows the 12yr old, whiney, bigoted kids that pollute Xbox live and the PSN.

4) Dedicated or private servers when playing online, i.e. you're not tied down exclusively to xbox live or PSN servers and can mess around with online game rooms. You'll also notice that with PC games, servers can include up to hundreds of players whereas in modern console games that number very rarely exceeds 16.

5) Value. While building a maintaining a decent PC is expensive work, PC games are known to be a lot cheaper than their console counterparts.
 
All of RedKaos' points are true. While I own an Xbox 360, and prefer some games on it, I'm much more of a PC gamer than anything else. Guitar-Hero type games are among those that work better on a console, as well as racing games and fighting games. FIFA-type games also.

All of my three favourite game types, FPS', strategy and RPG (Western, mind) are infinitely more sited to the computer than a console. I could give you Japanese RPG's on consoles, but I dislike most of them quite a bit.

Particularly FPS and strategy games work much better on a PC. Once in a while someone will claim that they think FPS games are better on consoles, which is a position I really can't understand at all. Luckily I've yet to hear someone claim that RTS' are better on console.

I do own a console, though. Several, if you count all the old ones. I just prefer to do the vast majority of my gaming on the PC.
 
RK is correct, although he forgot one major point:

PC games are likely to be far more concerned with fresh ideas and new innovations (or at least they were), and games are typically now dumbed down for the console market (which of course is now working the other way).

The only good thing about consoles nowadays is the open market allowing small and indie developers to reach a much larger audience in one place. That's real progress!
 
As Redlambs knows, PC gaming is a dead monster, as it's too easy to pirate software. There is a reason why the likes of Crytek are moving their focus to consoles, and it's simple, they make more money.
 
WeasteDevil said:
As Redlambs knows, PC gaming is a dead monster, as it's too easy to pirate software. There is a reason why the likes of Crytek are moving their focus to consoles, and it's simple, they make more money.
Click to expand...

It's not dead, but it's creativity and exclusivity is.

Doesn't change the fact that games are in general much better on a PC and that until the very end the games will always run better on a mid-level PC than a current gen console.
 
Oh and another reason to the list:

ALL (yep, ALL) new graphic techniques and updates are developed on the open system PC.


Oh and as for the Crytek comment, yes it's much better they were bought out by a big soulless company where they will sooner or later fade into the background then be free to explore the absolute genius they brought to the table.
 
Redlambs said:
It's not dead, but it's creativity and exclusivity is.

Doesn't change the fact that games are in general much better on a PC and that until the very end the games will always run better on a mid-level PC than a current gen console.
Click to expand...

Games are only better on PC because of its architecture and scalability. I find it odd that at one moment you argue for the Wii because of gameplay, and then the next you argue PC for technical prowess. Which way do you want it?

You then totally ignore the fact that they have come up with an AA method on PS3 for example using Cell that in most cases blows any PC GPU out of the water.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Games are only better on PC because of its architecture and scalability. I find it odd that at one moment you argue for the Wii because of gameplay, and then the next you argue PC for technical prowess. Which way do you want it?
Click to expand...

All ways, which is why I have it that way.

Why does it always come down to graphics versus gameplay to you? Machine versus machine?

Are you seriously saying that a company like Crytek are now better off (other than in financial terms) working primarily on consoles? Why, because of sales? We both know damn well then Farcry and Crysis are standout games that will be watered down for the consoles (well, already true with the former).

Pc gaming shouldn't ever die. The pirates should, though that won't happen. Oh and don't think piracy escapes the consoles, if there were no PC's around it would take over them just as much as it has pc, music and films.
 
Has anyone ever played a game called "Battle Realms" on the PC, always a classic.
 
Redlambs said:
Are you seriously saying that a company like Crytek are now better off (other than in financial terms) working primarily on consoles? Why, because of sales? We both know damn well then Farcry and Crysis are standout games that will be watered down for the consoles (well, already true with the former).
Click to expand...

All your shite about innovation etc. is all well and good, but it takes money, and to get that money you need to sell as many games as possible. The dumbing down for consoles is a stupid argument, as the current HD consoles are quite capable, in terms of other things non-GPU related, the PS3 can blow your high end gaming PC out of the water still.

Redlambs said:
Pc gaming shouldn't ever die. The pirates should, though that won't happen. Oh and don't think piracy escapes the consoles, if there were no PC's around it would take over them just as much as it has pc, music and films.
Click to expand...

I think that there is still one console where piracy does not exist. The strange fact of the matter is, the same company that makes that console also makes a handheld console where piracy totally destroyed its software support.
 
I always find the "PC gaming is dead" brigade very amusing. All too often they base their claims on sales charts which claim that sales for PC games are much lower than consoles, and are incomplete at best. Inevitably they will put "PC" up against "consoles", as if all the different consoles are the same.

Recent studies have shown that as much as half of all PC game sales are done digitally, and these statistics are rarely (if ever) accounted for in the usual sales charts.

Have a look at Blizzard, or Valve, if you think PC gaming is dying. Both are doing obscenely well, catering practically exclusively to a PC gaming crowd.
 
I'm not up much on hardware...but I'm fairly sure my pc would blow my ps3 out of the water if it comes down to it.
 
I used to be an avid PC gamer, but the constant need to upgrade your hardware in order to to keep up with the new games was not economically viable. I imagine that's the case for a lot of people.
 
Stemmy said:
I'm not up much on hardware...but I'm fairly sure my pc would blow my ps3 out of the water if it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

The only thing that most people's PCs on these forums that could blow a PS3 out of the water on is in terms of the amount of memory those PCs have. The Cell processor can eat an i7 at many tasks.
 
WeasteDevil said:
So why then does a company like Crytek move its focus to consoles?

I'd like to know why they do this?

Why did Infinity Ward do the same?

Online MMOs are different things.
Click to expand...

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? It's a genre that is developed on PC's, that has all its users on PC's, and is worth a lot of money. And it's not as if Blizzard is all about the MMO. They made their fortune on strategy games that sold well. Valve has nothing at all to do with MMO's. They sell a huge amount digitally, and are probably the wealthiest game developers out there - along with Blizzard.

Did Crytek move its focus to consoles? Seems to me Crysis 2 will be out on PC's as well. Of their three games so far, three of them were PC exclusives. It only makes sense to expand to the consoles. Valve did much the same with TF2, but no one can claim that they are "moving their focus to consoles".
 
niMic said:
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? It's a genre that is developed on PC's, that has all its users on PC's, and is worth a lot of money. And it's not as if Blizzard is all about the MMO. They made their fortune on strategy games that sold well. Valve has nothing at all to do with MMO's. They sell a huge amount digitally, and are probably the wealthiest game developers out there - along with Blizzard.

Did Crytek move its focus to consoles? Seems to me Crysis 2 will be out on PC's as well. Of their three games so far, three of them were PC exclusives. It only makes sense to expand to the consoles. Valve did much the same with TF2, but no one can claim that they are "moving their focus to consoles".
Click to expand...

MMOs? They don't exactly push the boundaries of the machine do they, that's are not what they are about. But FFIV is on PS3 as well as PC.

Regarding Valve, Portal 2 on PS3 will be integrated with Steam.

All of the major developers are moving to consoles for one specific reason - it generates more revenue. You have PC gamers going apeshit about this all over the net, that their games are getting gimped because developers are moving towards a console focus as their primary business model. For a reason!
 
Randall Fag said:
I have never understood this, although I’ve not played a game with the exception of FM on my PC or Lap Top. And I never will because neither have specs that can handle most games released these days. But also I don’t think I would be any good using a keyboard and mouse rather than a controller.

I have heard plenty swear by gaming on PC’s, and I was just reminded after reading through the Fallout 3 thread and a good few in there said get it on PC rather than Xbox for best experience.

I would have always assumed consoles were better seeing as that is their sole purpose.
Click to expand...

I've always prefered consoles myself, the only games I've ever played on a PC is Football Manager and few strategy games like Age of Empires etc.
 
First you want to exclude MMOs because, what, they "don't exactly push the boundaries of the machine", and then you finish up with the point that developers are moving to consoles because "it generates more revenue"? For someone who complained about someone elses inconsistencies only a few posts up, you sure are good at it yourself.

World of Warcraft has 11.5 million subscribers. That's a lot of money.

As for your point regarding Portal 2... yes? And? TF2 was also on both consoles. It even sold decently. I've just discovered another tactic of the 'PC is dead' brigade: they'll spin developers going multi-platform as "moving from PC's", as opposed to, you know, going multi-platform. Does it work among consoles as well? Games that are 360 and PS3 being a sign that the developer is moving to the 360 from the PS3 perspective, and to the PS3 from the 360 perspective? Cute.

Interestingly, 2009 saw twice as much PC gaming hardware sold as the combined total of Wii, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360's shipped.

Either way, what are we debating here? Suddenly it's all about numbers sold, is it? Seems to me like you've got another thread right next to this one where you talk of the casual nature of a console that has sold twice as many units as your precious PS3. Hell, if we're talking sales, FarmVille will probably be the king in another couple of years.

All I need to know is that the makers of my favourite games are doing very well catering mostly to a PC crowd. Valve, Paradox, Blizzard, Firaxis, Sports Interactive, etc. Even the ones that are making their games for consoles as well, like BioWare, aren't mucking it up completely on the PC. At the same time you've got plenty of indie developers whose business models would never work if they had to do the same on the consoles. Some are, and that's no doubt a good thing.
 
WeasteDevil said:
All your shite about innovation etc. is all well and good, but it takes money, and to get that money you need to sell as many games as possible. The dumbing down for consoles is a stupid argument, as the current HD consoles are quite capable, in terms of other things non-GPU related, the PS3 can blow your high end gaming PC out of the water still.
Click to expand...

First off, how is it a stupid argument that PC games get dumbed down for the consoles? They do, it has nothing to do with what's technically possible, you've missed the point.

Oh and my 2nd PC from a year before the PS3 and 360 were released is much more powerful at running games than either of those two consoles, let alone my main one. You can bang on about what the Cell can and can't do all you like, but the primary function of the console is to play games. It's good at that, but not really advanced.


I think that there is still one console where piracy does not exist. The strange fact of the matter is, the same company that makes that console also makes a handheld console where piracy totally destroyed its software support.
Click to expand...

There is no console in the history of consoles that hasn't been pirated. I'm not sure which one you are thinking of (Wii?) but I can assure you it's a simple procedure to open it up to directly downloaded games.


Domzi said:
I used to be an avid PC gamer, but the constant need to upgrade your hardware in order to to keep up with the new games was not economically viable. I imagine that's the case for a lot of people.
Click to expand...

That's been less true in this generation that any other. Again, my second PC is from before the PS3/360 and yet it plays the first crysis at astounding settings and I've recently tried Metro2033, Bioshock 2 and Singularity on it and it easily ran them (the latter two at 1280x1020 too). The last thing I bought for that was a £80 Geforce card two years back.
 
Redlambs said:
:lol:

Each to their own I guess! For the record did you think Crysis was awful too?
Click to expand...

He probably did. Personally, I think it caught far too much flak on account of being, get this, too pretty. Yes, it wasn't perfect, but I found it a thoroughly enjoyable experience. I've played it through from start to finish three times, which doesn't usually happen with shooters.

It did look spectacular, as well. Warhead was a pretty good game as well, for what it was.

That's been less true in this generation that any other. Again, my second PC is from before the PS3/360 and yet it plays the first crysis at astounding settings and I've recently tried Metro2033, Bioshock 2 and Singularity on it and it easily ran them (the latter two at 1280x1020 too). The last thing I bought for that was a £80 Geforce card two years back.
Click to expand...

This is true. I just upgraded my computer for the first time in three years (which could still play any game, if not at the highest settings), and it cost me a lot less than the first computer I bought when I was 13-14, ten years ago. And since I had quite a bit of money to spend now, I went for quite high end stuff. I could have gotten a computer good enough to play anything for quite a bit less.

So while there's still some truth to it, it's far from as severe as it was.
 
I prefer substance over graphics. If you ignore the graphics, it's average.
 
How has why is PC gaming considered better turned into is PC gaming dead or on the way?

Re the former, PC gaming is better for the reasons listed in the second post, specifically custom content and dedicated servers for most games. The mouse + keyboard combination is generally more precise than a gamepad as well. Regarding selection of games there are a lot more indie titles, but then some of the major releases are moving towards being console only - and to be honest who can blame them for going where the money is?

Regarding whether PC gaming is dying off, to draw a parallel it reminds me of when people say "Giggs and Scholes are finished" - people have been saying it since 2003 and it's not at all correct.
 
I think that there is still one console where piracy does not exist.
Click to expand...

and yet their software sales are average at best, often behind xbox360

If that's the best a piracy free console can do, then I think piracy isn't the only problem out there.
 
I have an Xbox and a good gaming PC. I game mostly on the PC. The reason being superior graphics, stronger online community for multi-player with more options for interaction, much better audio and a lot more flexibility for input devices.
To top that off I also have a huge PS2 collection of games I have "acquired" which I am now playing on my PC via PCSX2. Most of them work flawlessly and look better than they ever did on the console given the fact that my PC allows me to run them at 6x their original internal resolution and add a nice bit of anti-aliasing.
Having said that I understand the console option is cheaper and more user friendly for casual gamers.
 
PC gaming had a golden age, but unfortunately the cream of the software houses went where the money was. Which is unfortunate, as it has lead to lack of creativity in the industry. We now find ourselves facing a long line of generic titles that are guaranteed to sell a certain number of units.

From an oldskool gamers point of view, i really don't understand the massive console fanboi culture. The ps2/ps3/xbox/wii have had an incredible amount of overpriced and shit games on them.
What consoles really lack are decent RPG's/RTS and games aimed at mature players. (not killing and gore) intelligent gameplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.