There is one thing that I really, really like about PCs: The flexibility. Writing letters, surf the web, watch movies, run a business, and play games; it's all possible on the PC (to varying degrees, at least, and with some effort, in a few cases).
That's why I keep a laptop around: It's so very, very flexible.
Consoles, on the other hand, do one thing, and do it well: Play games. Everything else is additional bonus. And the additional bonus depends quite a lot on what the console makers offer. Watching movies, surfing the web, playing games: You are limited by what the console offers. If you can't play a certain movies, you are stuffed if the console doesn't support the video format. If you want to surf the web: No, keep to the corral we built for you (the exception here is Sony). Wanna play one of your old games? Hah, only if we deign to support it!
This blows.
I'm fully aware that you can't do everything on a console, and never will be. The TV screen is too limiting (even HDTV is, alas), and video codecs cost royalties, or use a risky license if they are open source, and a dozen other problems.
But is too much to ask for a web browser? Something more than a glorified movie player? Fortunately, this is changing. I got the short end of the stick, since I managed to invest in the one console without a web browser. Joy of joys.
The weakness of the console is a strength, for both developers and us, the gamers, since the hardware doesn't change, so testing becomes easier, simpler, and we can be absolutely sure that a game will work, without having to memorize arcane details (From how installation works and what folders are, to the minor revision of the ethernet card's driver; the level of arcaneness varies from from user to user). This also should, in an ideal world, result in better games, since more effort can be put into the creative process, as well as plain-old ironing out bugs before release.
In a nutshell, the difference between consoles and PCs is: Instant gratification.
With a console, it's disc and play, without worries. A PC requires more investment, but rewards that with more flexibility, but at the cost of compatibility. It is no surprise that graphics card vendors created their respective logo programs.
|
SchildConstruct's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
How do you think things like the NXE are possible?
For example, Early-ish versions of the PS3 are perfectly capable of running Linux. The Cell processor runs IBM's flavor of UNIX.
The XBox runs a slimmed down version of Windows CE.
The GPUs in Wii, XBox, and PS3 are variants (or led into) PC GPUs.
If I were comparing, say, the PSP or the DS to PCs or their bigger brothers, you'd be right. But handheld devices have vastly different design parameters than your PC, XBox, or PS3.
Further: look at multiplatform games. Modern Warfare, W@W, Fallout 3, all play and look similar on all their platforms. The difference is in the input devices. And I can hook a gamecontroller to a PC (both XBox and PS3, even) quite easily.
So, you see that your simile doesn't work at all (unless you were to compare "big release" and episodic gaming. The former's quite like a movie, the other is quite like a TV series) when it comes to hardware.
PS: A quick google for "$console linux" results in: http://www.free60.org/Main_Page and in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_the_PlayStation_3
That'd be hardly possible without general purpose CPUs (without going into detail regarding different CPU architecture paradigms)
Your argument is PCs do more therefore they are superior. My argument is "Duhr!" They weren't made to play games they just have the ability. In the same sense consoles are stripped down PCs made for gaming but they just happen to have the capabilities to run other software.
Your whole argument is mightily flawed because the comparisons can't be made simply based on the fact that they can run the same games. They are two different machines serving two different purposes and can't fairly be compared.
Should I start comparing everything that plays MP3s to the iPod because they play MP3s?
I strongly suggest you read the blog post of mine preceding this one (Now I remember why I left the PC gaming scene...), where I clearly state that the console is superior, because they are less involved re. maintenance.
The decision "PC or Console" is very much a matter of *what you want out of your platform of choice*. That goes beyond playing games, if so desired.
But if you look at both my "Why I left PC gaming" and my "Console Constrictions" article, you'll notice that both platforms have upsides and downsides.
And yes, an iPod is an MP3 player. My iPod Touch plays MP3s about as well as my Trekstore i.Beat Zerebrax (actually, my i.Beat does it a little better, since it isn't subject to a volume cut off, as is the European iPod, due to French laws).
As far as their core capabilities go, MP3 players are identical to each other. This changes if you look for something that can do more. But then you are looking for something else entirely, ain'tcha?
I personally find PC's 'superior' simply because of those very factors, because I am not limited, and I can maintain my system at any time and not have to wait 3 months for it to get shipped back because some schmuck did the math wrong on a system board layout and fucked over 100,000+ systems. (which I had to go through 2 times in one year with a 360).
Is a console more user friendly than a PC? Sure, for someone who doesn't know what they are doing. But for someone like me, who has been using a PC since the mid 80's.. I find consoles more restricting, which I cant stand. But again, that's my preference. Yes they both have their pros and cons, but like you said it really all matters on what you want to do with your platform.