Tweet
Some dude *****ing bout how mutch cons you get when choosin pc over console gaming.. Found it on my news server 
1. The Cost of Upgrading:
A game requires a better system, so what do you do? You buy a new video card. But it still runs rather dissapointingly, because the processor is not feeding the raw data to the fast enough. So, you have to upgrade the processor, usually to a new family. That requires a new motherboard. And those hard drive accesses are slowing things down, so more and faster memory
also needs to be acquired. And the stereo from the sound card is so 90's, and the game supports the new 3D sound API, requiring a new sound card purchase. And that 13" monitor is painful to look at and too low res, so you should really buy a larger, better one. And those mock-up speakers are
too few and too tinny to appreciate positional sound, so the new ones need to have power ratings meaured in the hundreds of Watts. While everybody may not need such a drastic upgrading scheme, some will to properly enjoy the
latest PC game as it was meant to be. I refuse to settle for second rate performance or features in my games. But the cost of upgrading, in terms of research time, is high. But far in extreme is the price of upgrading. The above mentioned upgrades can go for $2000 for the best. And then I would be
upgrading everything else in the bargain. That is 10 times the cost of an X-Box or a PS2. Outrageous when the graphics cards for a PC cost more than a console system.
2. The Hardware/Software Lag:
So you have a Radeon 9700 Pro, the fastest card currently on the market. It is fully DirectX 9.0 compatible. Just one problem, by the time that games written for and using the advanced features of DirectX 9.0, ATi will be offering a card that actually performs well in DirectX 9.0 and is compatible with DirectX 10.0. Also, it seems that most games do not push current hardware to its limits. So a game may have polygon counts that will allow
it to run on a system with a Pentium III processor and a Geforce. And why are PC games still being produced on CDs instead of DVDs? What is cheaper and easier to use and install, 4 CDs or 1 DVD? Also, FMV on PC games look inferior because they are using mpeg 1 compression techniques, compared to
FMV on the PS2 or X-Box, which use much better looking mpeg-2 technology. By supporting these outdated machines and hardware, true innovation in graphics and sound is being held back.
3. Buggy Software:
This has been a complaint for over 10 years. PC game makers believe it is acceptable to ship out beta games to customers paying full prices in the store. Sometimes, these games can be considered in their alpha state because of the severity of the bugs or the missing features. (Previously advertised in many cases). And even a release is no guarantee that the problems will be fixed. A game that is not selling so well may see its
support yanked from it, although the game still suffers many from bugs. I have known games that are harmful to computers by deleting the wrong files. Multiple patches are the the rule, not the exception, and their size and the business of some servers can make patching a game an unpleasant and more importantly a non-gaming experience. And patches and saved games do not
always mix. In the past, developers had to write their game software to run on as much hardware as possible, but today with standardized APIs like OpenGL and DirectX their excuses dwindle. Also, some companies are not known for the stability or robustness of their drivers. It is very disappointing when the new driver introduces a bug that breaks a game,
especially if it enhances many other games. However, some developers cannot afford to playtest on multiple systems, and hardware issues have not disappeared entirely.
4. Complexity:
Running a PC is not a brainless exercise. It takes more than reading a game manual to get many games to work. A thorough knowledge of the PC is needed to get the best out of most games. Some PC games, like RPGs, come with brick thick manuals. Other games, like FPS and RTS games, often have skimpy manuals and require the gamer to go online to learn something useful or sit through tutorials of variable quality. Also, the PC has distractions, like web browsing, word processing, that cut into game playing time. As most games use the keyboard, the gamer will have to memorize hotkeys and function keys. Finally, upgrading a PC, while not the nightmare it once was, can
still be dangerous to components because someone does not know what they are doing.
5. Decline of Social Interaction:
Multiplayer on the consoles is usually a person to person experience. Four people, four controllers, one console, one TV, and in one room. With the right attitude and the right alcohol, it can be a night of fun. The internet has allowed people to communicate more expediently and often more cheaply. (Long distance v. email). However, dealing with people exclusively over a connection, not in person, leads to a decline in personal
interactivity. Gamers arenot known generally for their personal skills, and playing with people you do not know does not help. There is no substitute for personal contact for sustaining a friendship or a relationship, whether those persons play games or do any other activity together. Of course, distances may make such contract impractical and infrequent, and regular email will often do. But the single user focus of a PC does not encourage
this most desirable form of social interaction. Even voice chat is no substitute and anonymous persons frequently dissappoint.
6. The PC Architecture:
Approaching 25 years old, the PC is a dinosaur proped up by incremental improvements while trying to preserve compatibility. Rather than a life cycle of 5 years, the PC has been extended. This has required expensive upgrades to come with rapidly aging hardware. The PC is based around the processor doing all the work, instead of developing efficient and optimized subsystems to handle the various functions of a game. A jack of all trades
and a master of none, which requires more and more powerful chips to stay efficient. A brute force design paradigm is in place, which encourages laziness in design and in programming. And since no one can tell you about the PC architecture, except at the most primitive level, how can you write software without a stable platform. The OSes are another story. Only recently has Microsoft finally abandoned its 16-bit code for consumer Windows. There should be no more virtual real mode nonsense.
7. The Slave Power:
This is perhaps the most insidious strike against the PC as a gaming platform. The PC is identified with Microsoft and always has been. However, this partnership has, if anything held the PC back as a gaming platform. Bloated software, inefficient interfaces, proprietary code guarded like a person's life savings, flaws and holes so large an amateur can send a worm through, little to none user control over loading of drivers, inclusion of software designed to kill off all competitors, deliberate incombatibilities, notorious instabilities, product activation
and software spying, lifeless guis, overpriced and under featured upgrades, lack of support for old product, monopolistic tendencies towards gaming, exhausting promising gaming series, I could go on. No console gamer is forced to buy the X-Box, and it has two strong competitors. But for PC gaming, there is little choice but to run the games on Microsoft's excuse for OSes. Mac ports are too few and far between, Linux gaming is still in its infancy, and older games require either separate systems, which get costly, or emulation with its inaccuracies and quirks, which tempts the
gamer to download software illegally instead of finding it in the wild.
8. Holes in the Genres:
The PC does certain types of games better than consoles, but consoles also have their areas where the PC cannot touch. First up are third person adventures, like Mario, Zelda, or Tomb Raider. These games are better suited to controllers in my opinion instead of clunky keys. PC controllers are not up to console standards. The PS2 has 12 analog buttons and two
analog sticks. While some PC controllers have two analog sticks, new have buttons to press under them or embrace the concept of analog buttons at all. But the real indictment is against the D-pads of PC gamepads. I have never seen one that could compare to the D-pads of the PS1 or PS2 or the NES, SNES, and N64. While the D-Pad may be falling out of use, it depends on
precision for results. Another genre that the PC does not do at all is fighting games. You cannot really combo well on a keyboard, and those games are not something one plays on a PC. Sports games are usually after the fact console ports and many of the lesser sports are not well represented. Very few PC RPGs have much of a story, emotional involvement, or much direction. Lightgun games anyone? Who would want to shoot so tiny a
screen? There are also a lack of non serious party games for the PC like Super Monkey Ball or those dancing games. The PC may also be weak in softcore sims, like the Gran Turismos where people can get behind the wheel without having to be an expert in Nascar.
:blah: :scream:
1. The Cost of Upgrading:
A game requires a better system, so what do you do? You buy a new video card. But it still runs rather dissapointingly, because the processor is not feeding the raw data to the fast enough. So, you have to upgrade the processor, usually to a new family. That requires a new motherboard. And those hard drive accesses are slowing things down, so more and faster memory
also needs to be acquired. And the stereo from the sound card is so 90's, and the game supports the new 3D sound API, requiring a new sound card purchase. And that 13" monitor is painful to look at and too low res, so you should really buy a larger, better one. And those mock-up speakers are
too few and too tinny to appreciate positional sound, so the new ones need to have power ratings meaured in the hundreds of Watts. While everybody may not need such a drastic upgrading scheme, some will to properly enjoy the
latest PC game as it was meant to be. I refuse to settle for second rate performance or features in my games. But the cost of upgrading, in terms of research time, is high. But far in extreme is the price of upgrading. The above mentioned upgrades can go for $2000 for the best. And then I would be
upgrading everything else in the bargain. That is 10 times the cost of an X-Box or a PS2. Outrageous when the graphics cards for a PC cost more than a console system.
2. The Hardware/Software Lag:
So you have a Radeon 9700 Pro, the fastest card currently on the market. It is fully DirectX 9.0 compatible. Just one problem, by the time that games written for and using the advanced features of DirectX 9.0, ATi will be offering a card that actually performs well in DirectX 9.0 and is compatible with DirectX 10.0. Also, it seems that most games do not push current hardware to its limits. So a game may have polygon counts that will allow
it to run on a system with a Pentium III processor and a Geforce. And why are PC games still being produced on CDs instead of DVDs? What is cheaper and easier to use and install, 4 CDs or 1 DVD? Also, FMV on PC games look inferior because they are using mpeg 1 compression techniques, compared to
FMV on the PS2 or X-Box, which use much better looking mpeg-2 technology. By supporting these outdated machines and hardware, true innovation in graphics and sound is being held back.
3. Buggy Software:
This has been a complaint for over 10 years. PC game makers believe it is acceptable to ship out beta games to customers paying full prices in the store. Sometimes, these games can be considered in their alpha state because of the severity of the bugs or the missing features. (Previously advertised in many cases). And even a release is no guarantee that the problems will be fixed. A game that is not selling so well may see its
support yanked from it, although the game still suffers many from bugs. I have known games that are harmful to computers by deleting the wrong files. Multiple patches are the the rule, not the exception, and their size and the business of some servers can make patching a game an unpleasant and more importantly a non-gaming experience. And patches and saved games do not
always mix. In the past, developers had to write their game software to run on as much hardware as possible, but today with standardized APIs like OpenGL and DirectX their excuses dwindle. Also, some companies are not known for the stability or robustness of their drivers. It is very disappointing when the new driver introduces a bug that breaks a game,
especially if it enhances many other games. However, some developers cannot afford to playtest on multiple systems, and hardware issues have not disappeared entirely.
4. Complexity:
Running a PC is not a brainless exercise. It takes more than reading a game manual to get many games to work. A thorough knowledge of the PC is needed to get the best out of most games. Some PC games, like RPGs, come with brick thick manuals. Other games, like FPS and RTS games, often have skimpy manuals and require the gamer to go online to learn something useful or sit through tutorials of variable quality. Also, the PC has distractions, like web browsing, word processing, that cut into game playing time. As most games use the keyboard, the gamer will have to memorize hotkeys and function keys. Finally, upgrading a PC, while not the nightmare it once was, can
still be dangerous to components because someone does not know what they are doing.
5. Decline of Social Interaction:
Multiplayer on the consoles is usually a person to person experience. Four people, four controllers, one console, one TV, and in one room. With the right attitude and the right alcohol, it can be a night of fun. The internet has allowed people to communicate more expediently and often more cheaply. (Long distance v. email). However, dealing with people exclusively over a connection, not in person, leads to a decline in personal
interactivity. Gamers arenot known generally for their personal skills, and playing with people you do not know does not help. There is no substitute for personal contact for sustaining a friendship or a relationship, whether those persons play games or do any other activity together. Of course, distances may make such contract impractical and infrequent, and regular email will often do. But the single user focus of a PC does not encourage
this most desirable form of social interaction. Even voice chat is no substitute and anonymous persons frequently dissappoint.
6. The PC Architecture:
Approaching 25 years old, the PC is a dinosaur proped up by incremental improvements while trying to preserve compatibility. Rather than a life cycle of 5 years, the PC has been extended. This has required expensive upgrades to come with rapidly aging hardware. The PC is based around the processor doing all the work, instead of developing efficient and optimized subsystems to handle the various functions of a game. A jack of all trades
and a master of none, which requires more and more powerful chips to stay efficient. A brute force design paradigm is in place, which encourages laziness in design and in programming. And since no one can tell you about the PC architecture, except at the most primitive level, how can you write software without a stable platform. The OSes are another story. Only recently has Microsoft finally abandoned its 16-bit code for consumer Windows. There should be no more virtual real mode nonsense.
7. The Slave Power:
This is perhaps the most insidious strike against the PC as a gaming platform. The PC is identified with Microsoft and always has been. However, this partnership has, if anything held the PC back as a gaming platform. Bloated software, inefficient interfaces, proprietary code guarded like a person's life savings, flaws and holes so large an amateur can send a worm through, little to none user control over loading of drivers, inclusion of software designed to kill off all competitors, deliberate incombatibilities, notorious instabilities, product activation
and software spying, lifeless guis, overpriced and under featured upgrades, lack of support for old product, monopolistic tendencies towards gaming, exhausting promising gaming series, I could go on. No console gamer is forced to buy the X-Box, and it has two strong competitors. But for PC gaming, there is little choice but to run the games on Microsoft's excuse for OSes. Mac ports are too few and far between, Linux gaming is still in its infancy, and older games require either separate systems, which get costly, or emulation with its inaccuracies and quirks, which tempts the
gamer to download software illegally instead of finding it in the wild.
8. Holes in the Genres:
The PC does certain types of games better than consoles, but consoles also have their areas where the PC cannot touch. First up are third person adventures, like Mario, Zelda, or Tomb Raider. These games are better suited to controllers in my opinion instead of clunky keys. PC controllers are not up to console standards. The PS2 has 12 analog buttons and two
analog sticks. While some PC controllers have two analog sticks, new have buttons to press under them or embrace the concept of analog buttons at all. But the real indictment is against the D-pads of PC gamepads. I have never seen one that could compare to the D-pads of the PS1 or PS2 or the NES, SNES, and N64. While the D-Pad may be falling out of use, it depends on
precision for results. Another genre that the PC does not do at all is fighting games. You cannot really combo well on a keyboard, and those games are not something one plays on a PC. Sports games are usually after the fact console ports and many of the lesser sports are not well represented. Very few PC RPGs have much of a story, emotional involvement, or much direction. Lightgun games anyone? Who would want to shoot so tiny a
screen? There are also a lack of non serious party games for the PC like Super Monkey Ball or those dancing games. The PC may also be weak in softcore sims, like the Gran Turismos where people can get behind the wheel without having to be an expert in Nascar.
:blah:
:scream:
Comment