[Lord Dave]

I've never had that problem, and I run a lot of very old games. I think we can reasonably assume that our hypothetical casual PC gamer has no need to worry.

Once he has his rig set up with the right parts and drivers, sure.

Another plus for consoles is that you don't need to upgrade your console every few years to keep up with the games that are coming out. Every 10 years you might have to buy a new console, but you don't have to worry about whether or not your rig can handle a specific game.

But on the flip side, your console is 10 years old and any game that comes out at year 9 could have come out at year 1.
By contrast, 10 year old games are very visibly aged and modern games use top of the line technology and can't easily run on 10 year old hardware.

[Ghost of V]

But on the flip side, your console is 10 years old and any game that comes out at year 9 could have come out at year 1.

This is not necessarily true. The Ps3 had some games that looked about as good as late PS2 games when it first came out. Now, there are several games that look pretty damn good on Ps3 that look infinitely better than early Ps3 games. The Ps4 renders games that look very close in quality to Ps3 games. Most of the PS4's library consists of Ps3 ports at this point. Surely, in 5 years we'll have games that look much better than what we are seeing now on the Ps4.

The result being that your games look much worse.

Yes, they probably do look much worse than their PC counterparts. No arguments there.

[Lord Dave]

But on the flip side, your console is 10 years old and any game that comes out at year 9 could have come out at year 1.

This is not necessarily true. The Ps3 had some games that looked about as good as late PS2 games when it first came out. Now, there are several games that look pretty damn good on Ps3 that look infinitely better than early Ps3 games. The Ps4 renders games that look very close in quality to Ps3 games. Most of the PS4's library consists of Ps3 ports at this point. Surely, in 5 years we'll have games that look much better than what we are seeing now on the Ps4.

And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it.  What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code.  That's all it is, efficient code.  That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not. 

[Ghost of V]

And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it.  What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code.  That's all it is, efficient code.  That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.

That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.

If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.

[beardo]

It's thanks to consoles that games haven't made any significant advancements in graphics in the past 10 or so years.

[Particle Person]

It's thanks to consoles that games haven't made any significant advancements in graphics in the past 10 or so years.

Well, no.

[beardo]

please elaborate

[Particle Person]

Games have made significant graphical advancements in the past ten years.

Also PC exclusives exist. The graphical quality of games like ArmA or The Witcher aren't affected by consoles.

[beardo]

Fine.

[Ghost of V]

My previous post about DOOM 2 being the last good PC game was slightly incorrect.


I have revised my opinion because I almost completely forgot about the true greatness that is Dino D-Day.

Have you ever asked yourself: "What does it feel like to shoot a Triceratops in the face?" or "How would WW2 turn out if the Nazis had dinosaurs?" Well, this game is your answer.

By far the best game ever made. Any FPS game that lets you play as a T-Rex is doing something right. The graphics are also the best I have seen on any system. If you haven't played Dino D-Day then you're not a qualified PC gamer and you should just leave this thread. Or at least purchase it on Steam and start playing it. Call out of work/school if you have to. Dino D-Day is by far the most important game to come out on any system in the past 3 decades.

[beardo]

I played Trespasser. I know what it feels like shooting a triceratops in the face.

[Ghost of V]

I played Trespasser. I know what it feels like shooting a triceratops in the face.

Do you know what it feels like being a triceratops getting shot in the face?

That's what I thought. Buy Dino D-Day.

[beardo]

No, but i know what i feels like beign a Xenomorph being shot in the face.

[Ghost of V]

Do you even dinosaur?

[beardo]

Rarely.

[Lord Dave]

And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it.  What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code.  That's all it is, efficient code.  That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.

That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.

If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.

Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics?  Because that's really all consoles have.  If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.

[Ghost of V]

And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it.  What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code.  That's all it is, efficient code.  That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.

That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.

If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.

Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics?  Because that's really all consoles have.  If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.

I'm arguing that consoles are more convenient for gaming than PCs. You could use 10 year old hardware to play older PC games, yes, but if you wanted to play current games then you'd have to shovel out some money for upgrades. Buying a Ps3 and keeping it for 10 years is arguably less costly than keeping your PC up-to-date just so you can play Watch_Dogs with the draw distance at max. Graphics are relevant to games, true... but my argument is not "PC has better graphics so it's more practical for gaming".

PCs are more costly to the average consumer, so consoles are more practical for people low on funds or casuals. The entire console market proves this. Trends in gaming prove this. Consumers have proved this.

[Lord Dave]

And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it.  What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code.  That's all it is, efficient code.  That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.

That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.

If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.

Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics?  Because that's really all consoles have.  If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.

I'm arguing that consoles are more convenient for gaming than PCs. You could use 10 year old hardware to play older PC games, yes, but if you wanted to play current games then you'd have to shovel out some money for upgrades. Buying a Ps3 and keeping it for 10 years is arguably less costly than keeping your PC up-to-date just so you can play Watch_Dogs with the draw distance at max. Graphics are relevant to games, true... but my argument is not "PC has better graphics so it's more practical for gaming".

PCs are more costly to the average consumer, so consoles are more practical for people low on funds or casuals. The entire console market proves this. Trends in gaming prove this. Consumers have proved this.

Convenient?  Yes.  I mean, what's easier than popping a disk into a drive and getting a game?  Or a cartridge into a port and pressing a power button?

However, I would like to point out that if PC software stood still for 10 years then the PC becomes much cheaper. 
The Ps3 remained the same price for quite some time.  PC hardware, however, did not.  So in 3 years that Ps3 is going to cost the same but the same PC is going to be cheaper.

[Ghost of V]

And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it.  What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code.  That's all it is, efficient code.  That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.

That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.

If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.

Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics?  Because that's really all consoles have.  If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.

I'm arguing that consoles are more convenient for gaming than PCs. You could use 10 year old hardware to play older PC games, yes, but if you wanted to play current games then you'd have to shovel out some money for upgrades. Buying a Ps3 and keeping it for 10 years is arguably less costly than keeping your PC up-to-date just so you can play Watch_Dogs with the draw distance at max. Graphics are relevant to games, true... but my argument is not "PC has better graphics so it's more practical for gaming".

PCs are more costly to the average consumer, so consoles are more practical for people low on funds or casuals. The entire console market proves this. Trends in gaming prove this. Consumers have proved this.

Convenient?  Yes.  I mean, what's easier than popping a disk into a drive and getting a game?  Or a cartridge into a port and pressing a power button?

However, I would like to point out that if PC software stood still for 10 years then the PC becomes much cheaper. 
The Ps3 remained the same price for quite some time.  PC hardware, however, did not.  So in 3 years that Ps3 is going to cost the same but the same PC is going to be cheaper.

Build me a PC that plays GTA IV on max settings at 60fps for $400 or less and I will convert.

[Particle Person]

Do you own a PC?