22 replies to this topic

[Mark Parchezzi III]

Beyond the "mods" and "custom missions", why the hell is playing on PC "SUPPOSEDLY" better than playing on the console versions?
I tried to play SILENT ASSASSIN on a friend's PC and it was a total epic fail.
Am I missing out on something? It just doesn't seem right...
Weigh in, please, for my sake.

[Riprie]

Custom missions can be done by anyone even on consoles.

PC better? I don't know what are you talking about. Last time I checked they ported all of the versions of the game without changing anything. I believe it is just a matter of preference. Some like controllers some like keyboard and mouse.

[Bosola]

The difference being that the PC gives you a choice.

Seriously, keyboard/ mouse is easy mode with the 'ballers. Try playing it on a shagged out old PS2 controller instead.

[Cerb]

It really is a matter of preference, like CS said. I grew up playing on both consoles and PCs (save for fighting games, which control horridly on PC) with no trouble whatsoever, and actually prefer a gamepad to a mouse/keyboard. It's just easier to wire my nerves to a controller. Hell, the one I use for my 360 has a broken thumbstick, and I can still play well with it.

Edited by Black Cerberus, 06 July 2010 - 07:07 PM.

[Bosola]

Indeed. It's a matter of preference. All the more reason to choose the platform that gives you the greatest degree of choice in the world: the x86-Windows platform.

[pat]

pc is the best.
PC creating games .... :evil:
PC is more powerfull ..... it can be change and more powerfull .... but fucking consoles have irremovable hardwere :evil:
play agame on console .... then play it again on PC ....... what can you see ???? you enjoy by playing on PC ...
at all PC is very good.there are many things that prove PC is the best.

[Jack 17]

I consider PC to be the ever-superior gaming console, purely because it's always updating and you can customize it to however you want. Low graphics and high framerate as a preferance, or are you a graphicsfag and a casual who doesn't really care about high framerate? Can't choose on a console, you're given what the devs give you.

I could play Hitman with a PS2 controller port on a PC, so it's automatically better because it can do everything.

But above all, Mouse + Keyboard = quicker and more fluent. Aiming with analogs is a bitch and a half.

[UnbiasedLover]

But above all, Mouse + Keyboard = quicker and more fluent. Aiming with analogs is a bitch and a half.

Sneaking a character around with rigid, non pressure-sensitive W A S D Keys, then holding SHIFT to run (no incremental speed variations between walking and running) is even worse.

[Cerb]

I consider PC to be the ever-superior gaming console, purely because it's always updating and you can customize it to however you want. Low graphics and high framerate as a preferance, or are you a graphicsfag and a casual who doesn't really care about high framerate? Can't choose on a console, you're given what the devs give you.

When we're given great graphics and a high framerate on consoles, it doesn't matter if we're given a choice or not.

[Jack 17]

^^ You can use a gamepad anyway. Play with a PS2 controller, etc.

^^ Still, you're given a choice. I don't see the problem.

[Cerb]

I'm asking what relevance does the choice have if you're given the best of both worlds nine times out of ten on a console?

[Bosola]

Because you rarely are.

[Cerb]

Nine times out of ten isn't rare. All of my framerate problems come from my PC games, even when I'm using a perfectly capable machine, making the usual graphics sacrifices, and running performance enhancing programs. When you've got that level of unpredictability with your gaming machine, it just stops being worth it.

Edited by Black Cerberus, 15 July 2010 - 04:44 PM.

[Bosola]

True; there's no 'plug in and play' capability. With the range of hardware and environments on PC come a lot of prospects for conflicts, errors and crashes.

Edited by Bosola, 15 July 2010 - 04:47 PM.

[Cerb]

That's my main problem with PCs. Something that works on one PC isn't guaranteed to work on another, and they're very expensive to upgrade. I mean, if you can afford to build a monster of a PC that plays any game flawlessly, then hey, go for it. I prefer to opt against it because most upgrades I get don't seem to do improve anything. It just feels faster and more cost efficient to use a console, especially if you're used to them.

Edited by Black Cerberus, 15 July 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[Phillyphries]

Well I own all the Sony Consoles ever made and I have a gaming PC too. They're all great to play on so it doesn't mattter. PC is more expensive because it can do alot more then just gaming. But the only thing I would refuse to buy is Xbox's. Now that is a total waste of money.

[Bosola]

I own a 360, and enjoy playing with it. In what sense is it a waste of money?

[Cerb]

Yeah, a 360's no worse than a PS3. If anything, it's more functional as a gaming console.

Edited by Black Cerberus, 15 July 2010 - 05:52 PM.

[Phillyphries]

Well it's not bad, but I would hate to shell out 300$ everytime it breaks. I have friends where theirs broke at least twice. My ps3 has yet to fail on me ever since I got it in 2006. I'm not saying the 360 is a bad console, I'm just thinking it would be a waste of money to buy because the chance of it breaking is far too great.

@Black Cerberus
No, I don't believe so. The two different consoles have different programming input in them. So thus the two are only comparible when you compare games that were exclusives to both consoles for example comparing Killzone 2 to Gears of War. And to me Killzone looked AMAZING compared to Gears of War. Besides, the Cell chip placed in the PS3 has not yet even touched it's full potential, meanwhile a developer for Xbox admitted it has already been reached for the Xbox.

[Cerb]

My launch model has red-ringed on me about six times. I've fixed it myself and haven't had a problem since. It barely takes an hour and about eight to ten bucks for someone to just open the thing and fix it themselves.

That's actually the worst way to compare them, because you're not comparing them at all if you're comparing how they play different games as opposed to the same game. Every cross platform game I've played on both just ran better on the 360 than the PS3. At the same time, PSN's been playing catch up with LIVE ever since release, considering you're not going to do much with an online platform while keeping it free. Free means region locking, and reduced features. It's only made worse by the fact that PSN+ is just now reaching the market after several years, which only puts it just under the level of LIVE, since region locking's still there. Thus far, the only point it's got over LIVE is the online browser. Also, developers have been saying they've reached the 360's limit for two years now. They said the same thing for PS3 when Uncharted 2 and Heavy Rain came out. It's nothing more than a marketing ploy.

Edited by Black Cerberus, 15 July 2010 - 11:46 PM.