PC or Consoles? Which is better?

[Phill 1,285]

Depends on the type of game. For FPS's I prefer PC, and for platforming games I prefer console

[Blood Moon 109]

Honestly, I say neither is better than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I honestly game on both. Granted, the only consoles I play on are Nintendo ones as the games that would be on the other two of the big three tend to also be on PC. But, both have games I can't get on the other so I like them both. It's all about preference. I never understood the argument of which is "better" when it's all of a matter of taste. I prefer consoles, but I wouldn't say consoles are better, since I also enjoy PC games as well.

Agree to disagree, let people have their tastes. Simple.

[Luminance 2,182]

As much as I like pc's, they're expensive to built. Factoring all the hardware and additional software to have a decent spec PC, a console is a fraction of the costs. I rather spend less in this case. 

[Discordian 6,013]

9 hours ago, Phill said:

Depends on the type of game. For FPS's I prefer PC, and for platforming games I prefer console

If your issue is with the controls than PC is the way to go. Usually there's a way to plug a controller into the computer and use it for a game. A lot of PC games have it as an option by default.

[Celli 4,335]

6 hours ago, Star Trail said:

As much as I like pc's, they're expensive to built. Factoring all the hardware and additional software to have a decent spec PC, a console is a fraction of the costs. I rather spend less in this case. 

Not really, you can spend $500 on a good budget gaming PC, and you can upgrade later, so no, it's not expensive.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Celli

[Discordian 6,013]

7 hours ago, Star Trail said:

As much as I like pc's, they're expensive to built. Factoring all the hardware and additional software to have a decent spec PC, a console is a fraction of the costs. I rather spend less in this case. 

 

A good PC might be more expensive initially but unlike consoles you can go a long time without ever having to upgrade if you get a decent enough computer. A lot of PC games have multiple graphical and power usage settings in case you don't have the most powerful PC so you don't have to have top of the line every time.

 

Imagine, if you will: you pay $1200 for a good computer. Now that computer will last you the next five years at the least, still able to play the highest tier games and having literally every PC game from the last twenty available. Even if you only played those twenty years' worth of games you still only spent $1200, assuming you didn't have to replace any parts.

 

With consoles you not only have to pay $1200 to get all the latest consoles but if you want to play the latest games you'll be forced to upgrade (AKA another $400) when a new console generation comes out because a large portion of games are not going to have dumbed down ports for the weaker console (though that was rather common in the PS3-PS4 overlay). If you want to play older games you have to hope your current console is backwards compatible. Even if it is your console runs into two problems:

 

1. There's always the risk of your console not emulating that game well and having glitches (sometimes game-breaking ones) that aren't in the game if it was played on its proper console.

 

2. You're only going to be able to play so many generations back so you'd have to spend money to get an older console anyway. This problem is going to get worse and worse as the generations go by.

 

On top of all that PC versions of games are regularly cheaper than console games. Whether through massive holiday sales or finding bundles on third party sites you'll find yourself spending a lot less money on a lot more games over time.

 

If you aren't playing just one game, or playing on console because your friends all play on that particular platform, PC is a much better investment.

[Celli 4,335]

I would like to point out that while PCs are using client servers for online gaming, consoles still use peer to peer, which while cheaper, you're connecting to other people, not a server. Latency is going to be higher, it's not as secure, and despite what console fanboys say, you are actually more likely to become victim to cheating on consoles than on PC. So the argument that "there are more cheaters on PC!" Holds no ground.

[Ando333 135]

If I want to play all alone without friends IRL, then PC is usually the best option. My reasons are:

- I can play videogames from literally all generations and not only one or two, and more games in general too.
- I can disable or customize uncomfortable visual or gameplay features.
- Higher frame rate (important for FPS videogames).
- Moding
- I'm just used to mouse and keyboard for most genres.

But if I had actual friends IRL I would prefer a console so we could play together and stuff, which would be more fun despite all the things mentioned above.

I've always used PC more, and still do, but I voted for Console because I think it's a more sane way of taking videogames and it doesn't feel like a black hole that consumes my life like computers do.

[Discordian 6,013]

1 hour ago, Ando333 said:

If I want to play all alone without friends IRL, then PC is usually the best option. My reasons are:

- I can play videogames from literally all generations and not only one or two, and more games in general too.
- I can disable or customize uncomfortable visual or gameplay features.
- Higher frame rate (important for FPS videogames).
- Moding
- I'm just used to mouse and keyboard for most genres.

But if I had actual friends IRL I would prefer a console so we could play together and stuff, which would be more fun despite all the things mentioned above.

I've always used PC more, and still do, but I voted for Console because I think it's a more sane way of taking videogames and it doesn't feel like a black hole that consumes my life like computers do.

 

I would argue the only game higher framerates matter in is a fighting game. Nearly everything else, shooters especially, is best at 30. 60 looks unnatural and ruins immersion completely imo.

[Ando333 135]

It might ruin immersion but it helps with the gameplay since you are able to see more that way. I don't have anything against those that prefer it at 30 tho. I just personally prefer 60 or as much as possible.

[Discordian 6,013]

It doesn't really make that much difference. In fighting games a frame by frame instant can mean the difference between survival and not. In shooters it changes nothing. I've never played a game where you didn't have more than enough time to shoot a guy before he gets to you.

[Ando333 135]

I don't disagree at all about what you say about fighting games, since they even NEED to have constant solid frame rate to even work properly online as well. 

 

Quote

In shooters it changes nothing.

It changes a lot actually, you just seem to not be used to it.

Quote

 I've never played a game where you didn't have more than enough time to shoot a guy before he gets to you.

It's not only about that.
I'll give you an easy example:
You enter a hall as soon as an enemy was entering a room from the same hall. If you are playing at 30fps and you are unlucky, maybe you couldn't see that person entering the room, even if the only thing you could see was his foot left, which you could see if you had more fps. 
In short, having less FPS means the game cuts frames so you objectively see less of what's happening. Most people don't realize about it since, I admit, one has to be kinda obsessed to it to easily notice the change. 
Having less fps (say 30 compared to 60) feels more cinematic because you feel less owner of what's happening. You see more than what actually is because it's just your subconscious trying to replace the empty places, so explosions and such seem to be a lot bigger and messy than what they are at 60fps or more, because at 60+ you are able to see it all and it's not as impressive as it seems at 30, but in truth, you also see more realistically that way and are more aware of what you are seeing all the time.

Pretty basic concept tbh

Edited July 15, 2017 by Ando333

[Celli 4,335]

19 minutes ago, Discordian said:

 

I would argue the only game higher framerates matter in is a fighting game. Nearly everything else, shooters especially, is best at 30. 60 looks unnatural and ruins immersion completely imo.

What shooters have you played?

[Discordian 6,013]

Just now, Celli said:

What shooters have you played?

Turok Evolution, RAGE, Bioshock, The Darkness, Destiny, Timesplitters: Future Perfect. To name a few. I can't remember every FPS I've ever played.

[Celli 4,335]

Just now, Discordian said:

Turok Evolution, RAGE, Bioshock, The Darkness, Destiny, Timesplitters: Future Perfect. To name a few. I can't remember every FPS I've ever played.

All on a console?

[Ando333 135]

None of those is a competitive FPS tho afaik

[Discordian 6,013]

I don't play competitively. Almost exclusively if I'm playing multiplayer at all it's coop.

 

But yeah, all of those on consoles.

[Celli 4,335]

7 minutes ago, Discordian said:

I don't play competitively. Almost exclusively if I'm playing multiplayer at all it's coop.

 

But yeah, all of those on consoles.

Have you played Metroid Prime?

[Discordian 6,013]

I have.

 

Metroid Prime 4 is one reason I'm even considering getting the Switch.

[Celli 4,335]

3 minutes ago, Discordian said:

I have.

 

Metroid Prime 4 is one reason I'm even considering getting the Switch.

Alright. Well, the entire trilogy runs at 60 fps. Would you say it's not immersive with that framerate?

[Scrubbed user 3,415]

13 minutes ago, Ando333 said:

None of those is a competitive FPS tho afaik

I've played Borderlands 2 at 60 FPS, and it looks a whole lot nicer than the 30 I got when playing on a PS3.

[Discordian 6,013]

Just now, Celli said:

Alright. Well, the entire trilogy runs at 60 fps. Would you say it's not immersive with that framerate?

 

It's hard to say since I've never seen it run at a lower fps but any game that's gone from 30 to 60 has actually been ruined by raising its framerate. I suppose I'd have to admit that it somewhat depends on whether the game was designed for that framerate or not. I deny the notion that 60 is inherently better than 30 at the very least.

 

For example, Uncharted. Having played it in both 30 and 60 it just doesn't feel right at 60 since the original games were at 30. It was made for that.

[Celli 4,335]

15 minutes ago, Discordian said:

 

It's hard to say since I've never seen it run at a lower fps but any game that's gone from 30 to 60 has actually been ruined by raising its framerate. I suppose I'd have to admit that it somewhat depends on whether the game was designed for that framerate or not. I deny the notion that 60 is inherently better than 30 at the very least.

 

For example, Uncharted. Having played it in both 30 and 60 it just doesn't feel right at 60 since the original games were at 30. It was made for that.

Games aren't made for a certain framerate. It all comes down to whether the developer used the hardware to program the game to run at that framerate. Uncharted wasn't "made for 30fps". It runs at that because the hardware it's running on is extremely weak..

60 is objectively better than 30. The lesser frames you have, the choppier a game looks, and as a result, worse. GTA V on consoles runs at 30 fps and it gets frequent drops, resulting in a choppier image. You're probably used to 30 fps, so I think that's why you make the argument you do.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Celli
changed a thing

[GrimGrimoire 4,970]

What? No Virtual Boy? What the hell kind of poll is this?

Virtual Boy superior race.

[Discordian 6,013]

8 minutes ago, Celli said:

Games aren't made for a certain framerate. It all comes down to whether the developer used the hardware to program the game to run at that framerate. Uncharted wasn't "made for 30fps". It runs at that because the hardware it's running on is extremely weak..

60 is objectively better than 30. The lesser frames you have, the choppier a game looks, and as a result, worse. GTA V on consoles runs at 30 fps and it gets frequent drops, resulting in a choppier image. You're probably used to 30 fps, so I think that's why you make the argument you do.

 

It makes things look far more realistic. Closer to what we see in real life. Unless everybody sees life at 60fps and I'm the only one who sees everything at 30 (I'm aware that optics is way more complex than that). It makes games look cheap more often than not. In a game focused on story and atmosphere the worst thing you can do is make it 60fps.