Huxley, Which Platform?

[Corbs]

Originally Posted by Falcon

I don't know very many people who have rigs that can put out graphics with a resolution of 1920x1080, without a major drop in frame rate. Of course it is possible to build a PC that can trump this, but you aren't going to get one for anywhere close to $400.

Indeed. In all honesty, if I only wanted to play games, I'd buy a Xbox 360. Although it can give you a resolution of 1920x1080, we're talking about 1080i, and not true HD. 720p renders 1280x720.

Nevertheless, I'll admit the Xbox 360 is an amazing deal for a gaming station. Hell, it's definately worth it. Unfortunately, I use my computer for more than just gaming, hence why I didn't invest in a 360.

P.S.: Is the 360 version coming out after the PC version or was that only a myth?

[Kapeket!!]

Originally Posted by Demenhoth

i want answers from both sides so plz don't be 1 sided about this.
I don't know wether or not to get this game for pc or 360 when it comes out.
The major differences are:
360 = easier control IMO.
PC = maybe better graphics?
360 = no lag
PC = (if the rumors are true which i hope they aren't...?) All races.
360 = campain mode.
360 = BIGGER SCREEN!!!
PC = possibly easier downloads and Modding?

IDK just help me decide guyses.

PC.

Easier controls? Less options is more like it.

But all the little comparisions above mean nothing unless you have voice comms with your buddies. Ingame voice comms are garbage and that isn't an argument anyone can make. If you aren't having fun with your buds, what's the point, right? =)

Ventrilo or Teamspeak > any console setup ever.

[connnnn]

(@ resolutions between platforms)

There's not really a way to make a parallel comparison.

First, console games contain different content from the PC versions. For instance, often the textures are smaller so they can fit into the consoles media disc or memory limitations, so it's difficult if not impossible to find a congruity between the console version and a specific set of rendering settings in the PC version to compare directly. Also, console players tend to accept lower frames per second than PC ones; most PC players aim for at least 60, so people often choose lower settings for higher FPS (personally I tend to play on 1024x768, but I shoot for 85-100 FPS in multiplayer games). It's pretty common for around 30 FPS to be considered good for a console game. And don't forget that the monitors are very different in nature: PC monitors are smaller, but you sit much closer, so it's hard to compare the resolutions between the 2.

That said, I'm not sure how FEAR content/performance differed in the console version, but right now you can buy a video card (which is only 1 component of course, but almost always the most expensive one) that will run it at 1280x1024 (what would roughly translate to 1024p HD) at 30+ frames per second with every setting on high, for ~$100.

[Corbs]

Actually connnnn, 1080p translates to a resolution of 1920 by 1080 pixels.

[connnnn]

I didn't mention 1080p. I just tried to give some perspective on what 1280x1024 would be for anyone who isn't familiar. HD tends to use different resolution multipliers than PC monitors, so all the PC hardware benchmarks are going to be in the ones PC's use.

I added an extra word in case it confused anyone ;\

[Felix12g]

One thing to keep in mind when considering simpler controls on a console is Gears of War. One of the largest drawbacks to that control scheme is the lack of buttons available. As such they had to put much of the functionality into the a button which can cause problems during gameplay.

[melvin mcsnatch]

Xbox 360- I have one, I have a big *ss tv and a comfortable couch. All my gaming friends are thru xbox live. I could think of better thing to do with my money than drop $1200 dollars on a computer that wont play games 2 years from now. I used to pc game, but when my brand new top of the line $$$ video card couldn't cut it anymore, I quit. Consoles will overtake PC gaming in 3 years. I called it.

Get ready PC gamers:
Soon, the "Games for Windows" will also require XBOX Live memberships to play. This was in a recent article in Game Informer about cross-platform gaming.

[connnnn]

Actually I'm pretty sure consoles have basically always been more popular videogame platforms than computers in the US. It was that way in the 70s and 80s before the videogame crash, and I'm not sure what happened in the mid 80s, but then it continued again when the NES was introduced. We (I don't know how Canada compares) have some of the lowest PC and broadband saturation of any industrialized nation, so it stands to reason that PC gaming isn't as widespread as in European and Asian countries where they have both in practically every home.

And again, if you spent 1200 bucks on a PC and it "couldn't cut it" 2 years later, you got ripped off. It's not the platform's fault, it's yours (or arguably the industry for preferring to take the auto mechanic-style "keep the public ignorant" approach, which I personally believe needs to change).

As for the Xbox Live... from what I've read, XBL (subscription) services are basically bells and whistles on the PC rather than something everyone will feel obligated to use; it seems more oriented toward creating a familiar environment for people used to playing on consoles than getting PC gamers to pay for those additions. The internet isn't a closed network that Microsoft can control like XBL is; anything they try to charge for on XBL on the PC will have a free equivalent somewhere. It doesn't mean it'll be as good, but it'll be there. X-fire, etc

[Felix12g]

I'd have to agree with connn. The tower I built in January cost me about $1500 including a new LCD monitor and includes top of the line hardware and some extras I probably shouldn't have gotten. Like my last tower, I expect it to last 5-6 years easily. With the option to overclock the hardware to get increased performance, it will probably be viable as a gaming rig for much longer. So if you payed $1200 and can only get 2 years, either you need to be realistic in expect 300 fps on each new game that comes out or you got ripped badly.

XBox live might be a good service for consoles but Microsoft is milking the whole community. I'm pissed as a PC user that I need to dish out a subscription to play online with shadowrun for a user run game with no persistance. Some people might think its a good idea paying monthly just so they can showoff their acievements, but I'm not a fan. When cross platform gaming becomes more common we just might find a reform in pay to play for sub par services.

[Van_Crackin]

I love LAN parties.
I hate getting all the equipment back and forth and finding people to do it.

Split screen only requires 1 TV, 1 Xbox, 4 controllers.
Got a buddy with an Xbox and some friends?
4 on 4 is more than enough for a halo fragfest.
And if you got MULTIPLE friends with MULTIPLE XBOXS, WOOO! EIGHT ON EIGHT MAYHEM.

But when you get up past the 2 Xbox mark it gets a little more complicated and whatnot. regardless, it is easier for local multiplayer on a console. Much easier.

I do realize there are lan cafes, but I would rather not pay to play, you know?

[fleshcutter]

well i am better at the controls of a pc than a controller, i have played fps games on the xbox and im not so great at it but on the pc 1look of me and your dead. but you should dcide like i did which controls are you better at?

[Corbs]

Originally Posted by connnnn

I didn't mention 1080p. I just tried to give some perspective on what 1280x1024 would be for anyone who isn't familiar. HD tends to use different resolution multipliers than PC monitors, so all the PC hardware benchmarks are going to be in the ones PC's use.

I added an extra word in case it confused anyone ;\

Yikes... actually my bad. I took 1024p for 1080p. Sorry connnnn. Shame of me...

Anyhow, it seems we can't edit our posts past a certain deadline. Sorry for the confusion.

I have to disagree Felix12g, a gaming tower won't last more than 3-4 years (I'm actually pushing it by saying 4 years, but I took in consideration that you might overclock it).

[connnnn]

It's all good.

But the thing about comparing PC and console life spans is that while consoles give you the benefit of consistency when it comes to game performance, PC's give you more hardware options. This is what makes it basically a toss-up in my opinion. You can choose to stretch your PC hardware for many years by lowering settings, and the vast majority of new games don't require the newest PC hardware to run, because PC developers (by the very nature of the platform) have to produce with a wide range of systems in mind. Consoles tend to have around a 5-year life span, and that's really not all that different from PC's if you're talking about playing the newest-generation games, although there are plenty of new PC titles that you can play on 5+ year old systems if you choose to lower settings. Generally you can hold out on PC upgrades a lot longer than consoles, since consoles typically shift all their software focus to the new generation long before the next console is even released (since they put out dev kits well in advance).