cccccombo breaker

I know PCs are better. The mouse and keyboard are perfect for FPS, MMOs, RTS, Adventure games (when they actually get made) and will always (potentially) have better graphics. The thing is that I don't care any more. I have a job and a wife. I don't want to sit at a desk staring at a monitor after 5:00pm. I want to spend money on games, not upgrades. I don't want to use Windows. I want to sit on my sofa, play a game, and enjoy life. Most of my friends feel the same way (even the hard-core geek crowd).

It's sad, but I really don't see PC gaming surviving the next round of systems (especially if Sony & MS can develop Wii-style pointer tech).

If the Xbox 360 could have a mouse and keyboard addon along with being able to play StarCraft and World of Warcraft... Damn. Something like that would be pretty sweet.

Maybe I'm just an old-school computer geek, but I'm impressed by programmers & designers who are able to work inside a limited set of resources to create something really impressive. I think Mario Galaxy or the HL2 engine is far more impressive than Crysis. Look at what developers were able to squeeze out of the 300mhz PS2! Crysis is neat, but I could really care less.

The argument is unrelated.

I think we all know the reason Crysis isn't selling well, is because anyone who would WANT Crysis, knows how to get it without buying it.

It is true that the consoles however, are stepping up to the plate, however in this instance, it doesn't relate much.

Would the Crysis sell rate be higher were there no consoles? Sure. The reason Xbox exists is because PSX and PS2 started taking away serious numbers of gamers from the PC.

But selling games that need computers people don't have, and those who do, know how to get the game without buying it, nets you a shitty sales rate.

Why spend so much money upgrading something that becomes old in a few months when you can do one payment and get a console?

Just wait until Starcraft 2 is released.

Preferably I stick with PCs over consoles for a couple of reasons:

1) PCs as a system, although the hardware and software is constantly being upgraded, it as a whole has a longer shelf life than it's console brethren. An individual line of consoles, with the exception of Nintendo, don't typically last beyond 15 years on the market. I've read history on this and noticed that pattern. That line of consoles has it's time, the PC is still there, another line of consoles has it's time, the PC is still there, etc. And with the PC, even with the rapid outdating of hardware and software, preventing retro PC gaming, there are still various hacks, software fixes, software updates, and emulators to get around certain issues that when you use them. The PC simply is a platform that refuses to die and I love that.

2) The software and hardware updating is rigid, it's expensive, I won't deny it. But too many people seem to think you have to have the absolute best to play it. At it's best settings, you'd probably be right. But that right there is part of the problem. Game consumers have become more about glitz and glamorous aspects of their purchases including the best graphics. Don't deny it, a lot of you do. Different levels of quality in graphics increase or decrease the gap in price to have the right system to play that game between the PC and consoles.

Low end graphics close the gap in price a little bit more, but when going higher end like too many consumers are demanding, the console price stays the same while the PC goes much higher in price, making that gap even wider. So it can be said that the console and it's appeal is that it can have a wide array of graphical qualities, but the price of the console to run it stays essentially the same no matter what and even drops a little over time.

However, that is part of the problem, people can buy the consoles (talking 7th gen mostly here) getting high end graphics equivalent or better than what most PCs can handle but without the same cost, but why do you have to play with high end graphics? Why is it absolutely necessary? You can play with lower end hardware and the gap in price between consoles and PC start to close up a little more.

3) PCs have the widest array of controllers and games compatible with those controllers out there compared to the consoles. Consoles are just starting to get things like k/m accessories, while the PCs peripherals have since become wide in diversity. In my 10+ years as a PC gamer I have seen a wide array of controllers beating the consoles out by a longshot. Wiimote is cool, but not completely original. I seen similar shit occuring on the PC in the late 90's with wireless, baseless joysticks.

Anyways, disliking the PC because of it's controller is a bit ambiguous because it implies that it has one contoller, the k/m, when it has a large selection of controllers to play games with and games to be compatible with them.

All in all, I'm sick of seeing the same arguement of whether a PC or a console is better based on controls, because not only is the gap in controller differences and availability progressively closing up, but also you don't have to play all games on the standard default controller. I can play virtually any of my games with a gamepad just like you console gamers can play, and in the future you console gamers can play some of your FPS games with a keyboard and mouse.

PC FTW. Always. :D

Jesus Christ. 35K units for Unreal. That is abysmal.

The reason there is no conclusion to this type of discussion is because most things are opinions.

Unless someone can frame properly the argument, there is no way to say this or that is right.

What we can say is that either "pc gaming is right for me because..." or "console gaming is right for me because..."

How about you just point out what you prefer about your selected platform and discuss that, not why someone who dares to disagree with you is outright wrong or an idiot?

Since the article is about Crysis I'll focus on that fps compared to the others. A reason I think it isn't doing so well is the fact that you have to have a big monster of a pc to play it at its highest level of detail, and even then most have said that the game is "made for a future pc." I know you don't have to put the settings all the way up, but I ask why buy a game if you have to make it look worse than its capeable of? That's the appeal of the console as opposed to the pc in respect to crysis. If I go out and get say COD4 for the 360 or ps3 I know it will look and play, hopefully, as good as its capeable of on those systems. If my pc is say 2 or 3 years old its not that simple, you have system requirements that you have to meet, and the average pc user doesn't have a high end system, at least not one that's required to play crysis at its best. If I'm getting a game I want it to look its best, not dumb it down so I can play it, and I'm not going out and spending a few grand to get a system so I can play 1 game.

It used to be that pc's were leaps and bounds over consoles in terms of graphics, and yes I know they still are, but not to the point we were at a few years ago. COD4 looks and plays great on my ps3. Would it look better on my pc? Maybe. But crysis on the other hand I had to reduce every graphical option on the demo by 50% just to get a decent framerate, and my pc is still pretty good in terms of most pc games that come out, played bioshock just fine, and I have the orange box coming this week for pc.

Their sales will pick up. I'm gonna go buy both of them by January. I will always prefer a keyboard and mouse over a controller, and most PC gamers feel that way. Therefore, there will always be market for PC FPSs. I wonder how many people bought COD4 for PC. Or will buy Halo 3 for PC when it comes.

I abandoned the PC for my 360 because there were more games on that platform that interest me then on PC at the moment. I think what's keeping games like Crysis in production is hardware companies, as it means more sales for them.

@Bronx

My PSN name is the same as it is here, Corak.

Crysis and UT3 both suck though... it's no surprise to me that neither are selling well which is exactly what I expected to happen. And yes console fps does suck less now days, but I still far prefer playing CoD4 on my pc than with analogues.

Im a PC gamer, I didnt bought a 360 because of the hardware problems, I like my stuff to work, if you make shitty hardware, I wont be in your client list. No matter how good replacement or guarantee program they have.

Now, Im afraid of the joypad, I dont like to play FPS with a joypad, I will go for the console when they accept me to plug it a mouse and a keyboard just and configure the controls just like a PC. I mean: how complicated that is? I think they dont do that because then the people with mouse and keyboard would have an advantage at FPS in multiplayer.

To all RTS critics:

Have you considered the possibility of an RTS on Wii? If not for the weak processing power, the control issue could be easily solved.

@Necros - You don't need massive processing power for a good RTS, you just have to be crafty. There was an underpowered runt of a game released a while back by Blizzard. It was called starcraft. It didn't take a top of hte line system when it hit in 94, and people are still playing it today. The Wii is more than capable of a good RTS, they just have to be crafty about it.

What I think is most funny about this discussion is that it happens every time there's a new console, and every time, some talking-head from the PC industry uses the opportunity to call an end to console gaming. Unfortunately, it's more like an end to PC gaming. 35k units? Geez.

@ Oldskool - Come on. You didn't watch videos of Far Cry going "Man, that's going to be fun to play with the shadows and particle effects turned off and the textures backed down to mid-low!" You more likely thought "Fuck! I need to get a new graphics card." I fail to see how it's better to spend money on a PC, then more money on the PC a year later, then more money on the PC a year later, then more money on a new PC because it's cheaper than rebuilding the old one. I'd rather spend $300 on an xbox, then $500 on a 360, then probably $700 on whatever's next. I DARE you to claim that $1500 worth of PC hardware is going to get you through a decade of PC gaming without dealing with textureless, shadowless blobs, chopping through the low-res jungle.


To the rest of you, give up on the KB/M crutch. IF you're so damned good, you can probably learn to use analog sticks. But you're not even trying, pussies.

PC gaming isn't dying. It isn't even close to dying. Christ, guys, Crysis and UT3 are not the fucking end-all of the platform. Crytek made a bad decision when they decided to make their game aimed at the highest of the high end. THAT IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO GET SALES. Not everybody has or wants a multi-thousand dollar PC. And you don't need one for most good games. My current PC cost me about the same as a Wii. Seriously. $240 for the main system, plus my old CRT monitor I've had and used for about 5 years now, and a $40 video card, and I can play most games just fine. I can't play Crysis, but the Orange Box runs at 1025x768 with all settings on high perfectly for me. For the cost of an Xbox 360, you can buy a whole, already set up modern PC that will play ALL games at fucking Walmart. Claiming you need to spend thousands of dollars and a super l33t rig and spend hours of time and effort tinkering to get shit working well is absolute bullshit. Maybe if you're extremely unlucky or something, but I've never had those problems when I got a new game, and none of my friends have, either. The people I know with consoles have had far more trouble than I or my friends that favor PCs have.
And of course, you can get a USB gamepad for the computer. You can even use an Xbox 360 controller with a driver from MS (You don't need to get a controller driver if you're using Vista FYI).
Even if all the advantages and uses of a PC were nil. Even if they all went out the window. I would still be a PC gamer till I die for the sole fact of the indie and freeware game scene. You can't get Knytt Stories, or Survival Crisis Z, or Afraid of Monsters, or Zombie Master, or Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, or ZODIAC, or Redsun: 2020, or custom fan-made maps for Portal, or an infinite number of other gems for the PC anywhere else. You most likely never will if the console makers have any say about it. They verify and rule over every single thing they allow on their machines.
The PC, I think, is at present a sort of Wild West type scene. Untamed and free, mostly unregulated, with all the good and bad that can come from that. I vastly prefer things this way.

I'd personally rather play on a couch than at my desk, but there's plenty of PC gaming I enjoy. Typically though it's titles from a few years back through GameTap, since I know my system can run them well.

I think I've had too many bad experiences with console controls in FPS to switch just yet. I'd rather struggle to get a game running right than have it work, shittily, right out of the box.

Also, titular is easier to use than titillating. You're welcome.

The whole situation is like Animal Farm. One day consoles and PCs will be playing cards, and all their friends looking at them won't be able to tell the difference anymore.

comment 100. whoisdrboa.