Keldryn
Arcane
Role-Player said:That isn't an inherent element of a console, it's inherent to who plays it, actually. I can hunch over or lean back regardless of whatever platform I'm playing. <snip!>
Oh, I totally agree. I wasn't trying to state that consoles are univerally more comfortable to play games on. The original question was why anyone with a PC would choose to play the same "downgraded" game on a console, and that was one of *my* reasons for doing so.
Role-Player said:Just the same, comfort in handling certain platform accessories depend on the accessories design itself, there is no inherent platform superiority when it comes to that. If you're faced with choosing a rough cube with buttons vs a gamepad made with curves that adapt to your hand (much like a mouse), then you're obviously going to go with the one that's more comfortable. For instance, I find it terribly uncomfortable to handle an input method that requires both hands to be rigid and fixed on it (controller), as opposed to being able to move both arms independently (mouse and keyboard).
I'm a firm non-believer in platform superiority. Well, other than objective measures such as saying that a high-end Radeon card has superior graphics capabilities to the Xbox, which as superior graphics capabilities to the PS2. But I don't see any platform as being inherently superior to another, in terms of gaming enjoyment. I don't buy into the whole PC gamer vs. console gamer dichotomy either, but that's an entirely different can of worms.
If I could use a gamepad with more PC games, I would do more gaming on the PC. I do have a USB adapter to hook up two Dual Shock 2 controllers, which I find much more responsive than any PC gamepads that I've tried. However, most PC games just aren't set up to use a gamepad, and the keyboard/mouse emulation programs only go so far.
This is true. Though, I think this may vary from case to case. A graphics card for me lasts about 5 to 7 years, for instance, not only because I tend to play older games, but also because I want to make my investment to last for a long time. And also, 5 to 7 years is roughly the same amount of time between the slow death of outdated console and the release of new-gen consoles. Between buying a new console and a new videocard, the amount of time I'd wait would be basically the same.
I think I've had my GeForce2 GTS card for about four years now. It was around $200 Cdn when I bought it, and the GeForce3 cards were still about twice that, or more. I don't think anything better than the GF3 had hit the market yet. If I wanted to buy a video card that I know would still be pretty decent 3 or 4 years from now, such as a Radeon x800 I'd have to spend at least $650. I could buy an Xbox Next, or PS3, or "Revolution" at launch for that. Or all three of this generation's consoles right now (if I didn't already have them).
I've mostly been playing older games, too. There haven't been a great number of spectacular RPGs on the PC for a while -- VTM: Bloodlines looks interesting, but it's one game, and I know it will tank on my GF2. The only game that I have that really stresses my video card is Dungeon Siege and it's toolkit, and that's only because on the Ultima V: Lazarus project, we're pushing a far more complex world (in terms of the number of nodes and objects) than did the original game.
This isn't inherent to the platform, either. It depends on how the platform is set up. If I set up a gaming PC in the same way as I'd set up a console - ie, centered on the room, with enough space around to have people watch in and take turns to play, and use a kickass large monitor - the effect would be largely the same. Taking a clue from personal examples again, my PC is set up in a much more social way than my consoles ever were. I have enough space around me for people to take turns at a game, gather 'round and watch me play, and even invite my girlfriend to sit next to me and watch (if she cared for videogames that is, though she seemed to like the idea of that Lego Star Wars game a whole lot).
I think we said pretty much the same thing. But the TV/entertainment center is typically the centerpiece of the room, at least far more often than is the PC. I'd wager the typical PC is set up on a desk in an out-of-the-way corner or in a spare bedroom. Nothing about the platform requires this, of course, although if the gaming PC is not a dedicated gaming machine, it may be less usable for programming/word processing/other work if it is not set up in a more work-oriented environment. If I had loads of extra cash, I would have a high-end dedicated gaming PC set up in a similar way to my game consoles.
I also installed a wireless system, which means that I can install a game on all 3 computers in the house and play it with (or against) 3 people. One of the computers is a laptop, which means one of the participants can be in his or her bedroom playing, without needing to sit right next to me using something like a multi-player adapter (specially cool when one person is sick and needs to be in bed but still wants to kick some ass in an online multiplayer shooter).
I miss having my old laptop from work. It was nice to kick back on the couch with the computer on my lap.
This isn't to try and claim PC superiority over consoles (even if superiority exists in several layers this will largely depend on consumer preference), but some of the perceived weaknessess of a gaming PC, specially when compared to a console, seem to be largely inconclusive or dubious to me, or rather, the proverbial 'brahmin crap' :razz:
The weaknesses of strengths of any gaming platform are going to be largely dependent on the needs of the individual gamer. Right now, my needs are to have a more comfortable seating position and input device than what I have during the rest of my day (and also just for it to be different than what I'm doing all day), and to have a setup where my gf or I can play a game and not feel like we're totally ignoring the other person.