AudioCircle
Community => Non-audio hobbies and interests => Ender's Game => Topic started by: Rob Babcock on 11 Jan 2006, 10:22 am
-
Which do you prefer for gaming? Just curious what the percentages are.
-
I have a 57" HD PJ TV, a 5.1 HT system with fullrange floor standing speakers on all channels, a sub on each of the front/rear left/right and LFE channels. 2000 watts of subwoofer power. When I drive over a curb in Forza I feel it. And a super comfy couch.
Can you even play games on a PC? Hhumm.
-
There is absolutely NO comparison between my PC and my sons PS2. The PS2 looks like a toy, graphics are significantly poor compared to the PC. I have the PS2 on a 36” Sony WEGA HDTV with a serious HT system and it’s of no value since it’s hardly used when playing games by me, or my kids. Minimum volume is what’s used 95% of the time and on my PC, I have (have had) all sorts of audio gear including surround speakers (JBL and Roland powered speakers). I find a pair of Sennheiser headphones to be real enjoyment when that sort of sound is necessary.
As far as picture quality is concerned, like I said there is NO comparison. My PC can play Hi Res with loads of eye candy (AA and AF) that is WAY beyond not only the PS2 but the new Xbox2 and upcoming PS3. I use an ATI X800XT and a 3800Mhz P4 under Windows. I guess if your computer is slower then that a console then I can see a console being better but that’s fairly slow. Consoles are basically low res (640 X 480) compared to computers that can run at 1600 X 1200. That’s like comparing VHS tape to HiDef.
Also, the console controller is horrible! A Keyboard and mouse is 100 times better. I have a MOMO racing wheel with peddles and I’ve had throttle yokes and other devices for driving and flying but for FPS’s or adventure games the mouse/keyboard is the clear winner!
Just my 2 cents.
-
My PC can play Hi Res with loads of eye candy (AA and AF) that is WAY beyond not only the PS2 but the new Xbox2 and upcoming PS3. I use an ATI X800XT and a 3800Mhz P4 under Windows. I guess if your computer is slower then that a console then I can see a console being better but that’s fairly slow. Consoles are basically low res (640 X 480) compared to computers that can run at 1600 X 1200. That’s like comparing VHS tape to HiDef. ...
The new Xbox and PS# will blow you PC video away. their new video architiecture are mone no object developments by ATI and Nvidia respectivley. You can anticipate better visuals as prices come down on hires tv's. I may switch.
from the pages of CPU magazine
The Xbox 360’s intelligent memory is one of the console’s biggest innovations. Substantial processing is now done within the memory, not beamed out across the CPU bus, yielding a massive bandwidth benefit and enabling output that may rival and surpass what’s on today’s PCs.
Curious, we asked Feldstein if he worried about the Xenos-driven Xbox 360 at $399 cannibalizing sales of ATI’s $549 gaming cards, which it seems can’t even deliver as rich of a gaming experience. After a moment he replied, “Anything that gets people playing games is good. It makes us sell more products everywhere, whether that’s a dual-processor PC or a 3D-enabled handset. Once you get bit by the graphics bug, it’s better for us.”
-
The new Xbox and PS# will blow you PC video away. their new video architiecture are mone no object developments by ATI and Nvidia respectivley. You can anticipate better visuals as prices come down on hires tv's. I may switch.
Don’t switch. That’s just not entirely true and very misleading.
I’ve read lots on the topic and most positive Xbox reviews don’t compare apples to apples in regards to the end result, my eyes! I remember reading a review comparing a game written for the 360 and PC, the images displayed clearly showed the 360 looking better till (in the fine print and not discussed in the article much) it was said that they were both from analog output at moderate resolutions. The 360 was certainly superior with its analog-out to a TV set then the analog (SVideo) output from the computer – so what! They commented that the PC’s monitor looked better then the analog capture and that with certain video cards high resolutions were obtainable. Duha!
Also, there are only a few games that are actually that good, most are poor.
Also remember that the 360 is as fast as it is ever going to get while my PC will continue to get faster. The ATI processor used in the 360 is a crippled version of the one on my video card but with a hyper transport to its memory which is limited in its amount. The multiprocessor cores are impressive on paper but until they are implemented by the applications (games), useless. By the time this happens, all newly sold consumer PC’s will be multi processor and the Xbox 360 will just continue to be slower and slower by comparison.
This debate is old and overly written about but the conclusions are always the same. The PC is more flexible, can evolve (be upgraded) and ultimately better and faster.
But we don’t have to agree, its all fairly pointless in the end.
-
boead
you'r right in that the new console wont be able to show their stuff untill software (games) are developed that take advatage of all the newfangle hardware. Also I just buiilt a dual core machine for a friend. I replaced his mobo and chip for $330 bucks, not bad.
-
FWIW, every Xbox game I've ever seen or played had Dolby Digital sound. I consider this a huge plus, and it adds an incredible dimension to many games. For instance, in HALO you can sense where all your enemies are by sound- you can hear them sneaking up behind you, etc. And MechAssault has more ferocious bass than any DVD in my collection- it's the only thing in five years that sent my subwoofer amp into thermal shutdown! :o
I realize this is personal opinion, but I gotta beg to differ on the keyboard and mouse. A controller is vastly better to me. The key/mouse combo is stacking golf balls with chopsticks. :lol:
:flame: :flame: :peek: :flame: :flame:
-
Keyboard and mouse could never be taken by any current controller, EVER. The precision of the mouse is unparalleled on all levels. The keyboard is the only possible weak link. The keyboard however is so versatile, the buttons are endless. Also I like being able to type to people. Yes I know you will say microphone but in all honesty I fucking hate them in games.
Being able to fire up the internet, listen to music, etc, on the PC is nice while playing a game.
Dolby Digital is nice, defiantly. There are PC games that are out in multiple channels. However games for generations with no more then stereo and some very nice headphones has given the ability to many gamers to locate enemies through walls and around obstacles. You might think it sounds fishy you could hear people with headphones as well as with Dolby Digital, but it has been done for generations of games.
PC is so in depth I do not even know where to start.
PC is superior but unfortunately expensive, as well as hard to do for some people, but rewarding. Consoles are convenient no doubt, but the games lack a lot of depth and have almost zero expandability.
I own neither a gaming PC nor console. I prefer to not play, they consumed enough of my life. What I will say is that I enjoy playing multiplayer with other people, and that is what I keep it too.
Rob the most fun you could ever have with Halo 2 (and map pack) would be with a group of friends, say another 15 of them, fighting it out over LAN. I honestly doubt any thing could top the level of fun as multiplayer. I understand people play live but it will never be as good as a LAN party, the level of fun on a personal level and the environment of caffeine and funny events that seem to take place…
Also just so you know there are problems with even the Xbox 360. The way it is made is very good for graphics; they are going to surpass PC’s for a few months tops. The one thing it can not do is have good AI, which PC can do extremely well.
(Even though I support PC I believe the glory days are over.)
-
I am not a huge XBox game-playing fanatic these days. But the only time I play is on the XBox. 40" sceen, Hi-Fi HT, major recliner, and I am escaping.
I work with computers all day and use them at night as well. When I play, I want on/off internet gaming in a HT environment.
Maybe when LCD monitors are huge and reasonably priced I will play some on PC...
-
Actually, I fucking despise multiplayer HALO over a LAN. Nothing on this Earth is lamer than "capture the flag" or deathmatches, in HALO or any other game.
The 360 has some titles that allow co-op play thru Xbox Live. That might interest me. But I have no interest in playing tag with 10 year olds.
-
Actually, I fucking despise multiplayer HALO over a LAN. Nothing on this Earth is lamer than "capture the flag" or deathmatches, in HALO or any other game.
The 360 has some titles that allow co-op play thru Xbox Live. That might interest me. But I have no interest in playing tag with 10 year olds.
Wow I did not see that coming....
What can I say other then I think your nuts.
-
Actually, I fucking despise multiplayer HALO over a LAN. Nothing on this Earth is lamer than "capture the flag" or deathmatches, in HALO or any other game.
The 360 has some titles that allow co-op play thru Xbox Live. That might interest me. But I have no interest in playing tag with 10 year olds.
Wow I did not see that coming....
What can I say other then I think your nuts.
You're not alone there. :wink: :lol:
I guess those are "young man's games." Mostly 10-12 year old young. :lol:
-
I played live for about a week.... I just do not talk to any one. I also if possible mute any one that I do not like! With a PC you can do this but still type to communicate if the situation calls and you do not have to listen to ANY OF THEM if you so wish. It really is not that big of a deal.
LAN parties are very fun with friends not little kids, Rob.
-
I was strictly PC since '82. Then in '02, I bought the xbox, which lived up to all the hype. I have saved buku bucks by not upgrading my PC every 4-6 months, be it either sound, vid, cpu, MB, or memory and HD. Yes, my box is now dead, and previously I had to replace the DVD player in it. I put $200 bucks into it in 3 years. Just ask my accountant, (wife), how many times I upgraded the computers the previous 3 years.
I am going to be buying (building) a dual core PC at the end of this year just in time for Vista and Supreme Commander. I do prefer keyboard and mouse over a controller. Games are also cheaper. This computer will also be much faster than the 360 or PS3.
Console pluses are of course, no upgrading except peripherals. Which at this point do not help game play, except if you were cheap and bought the 360 core. The software usually is much more stable, as it is written for one platform. If it does need a patch, and you have the capabilities of LIVE it is downloaded for you.
The games can only get more efficient for the hardware as programmers find more ways to eek out all the bells and whistles on the fixed platform. There are to many variables on PC's to use all the horsepower under the hood on everyones PC.
I think the choices come down to convenience.
PC-upgradeable, 3 mos after new console, it takes the lead again, totally customizable. Unlimited amount of games(greater amount of ports). Mouse and keyboard.
Console-Easy, cheaper, usually more portable, hook-up to TV, 5.1 sound.
My vote will be 50/50
-
I just don't enjoy deathmatches or capture-the-flag. It's interesting for about 20 minutes, which is how long it takes to see and do it all. Co-op gaming is cool, but almost unheard of in my experience. Pity- that would have more long term appeal than shooting the same six guys for four hours.
-
I was strictly PC since '82. Then in '02, I bought the xbox, which lived up to all the hype. I have saved buku bucks by not upgrading my PC every 4-6 months, be it either sound, vid, cpu, MB, or memory and HD. Yes, my box is now dead, and previously I had to replace the DVD player in it. I put $200 bucks into it in 3 years. Just ask my accountant, (wife), how many times I upgraded the computers the previous 3 years.
That's another big draw of the console. True, you may not be able to upgrade it, but the flip side is that you don't have to. There's no checking the box flap to see if it'll run on your machine, no more looking for a driver to play a new game, no more buying a new video card 'cause your current one can't handle Quake 4, etc. That's a big plus to me.
-
You really do not have to upgrade the PC nearly as often as you think. You can go years with no upgrade. The thing is how can you NOT want more performance and eye candy?! You do not have to have it to play the game, but it sure is better!
-
That is my point, I cannot look at the specs and read the reviews, and not want to upgrade my PC. Sure, you can play the games, but without the perty pictures, or immersive sound, or latest AI. HL2 was just that sort of game, I read you could play it, but the things that gave the reviewers a boner was the stuff my machine could not make it do. I missed out on that game altogether.
Oh to be Steve Ballmer's kid, even though they just got there 360 last week, you know he :roll: can afford upgrading his kids pc's every day!
-
I dunno about that...my brother has a pretty decent PC, 3.0 Gig Northwood Pentium, midlevel ATI card, and it flatly won't play Diablo 2. It just bogs down to a crawl. I've seen that with a lot of games on several machines.
Anyway, I'm not saying you shouldn't play on the PC. I'm just saying consoles better suit the way I play games. Although there are some great PC games I miss out on due to my unwillingness to play them on the PC.
-
Woodsea I had a 3400 X64 AMD, 9800PRO (128MB), 1GB memory, Creative Labs Audigy 2, machine that ran Half Life very well. I had a GREAT TIME playing that game. The best games I have played are always for PC, and that is usually because they will only ever function on a PC due to a lot of things.
Woodsea I have no idea what the specifications where on your PC... If it was any thing even semi recent it should of ran HL2 just fine.
Rob not to be a dick, but if your brother's machine with the basic specifications you have given will not run Diablo 2 well, he has no idea how to operate a computer. Diablo 2 will run fluidly on the machines that where around when it came out.... We are talking about below 1ghz.... those machines in comparison are actually thousands of times slower then more current computers.
People assume PC or MAC, is slow just because of the times changing..... That can be true but I would venture to say that just about any thing past the 1.2ghz mark to this day will never have any trouble with internet and minor tasks the daily PC performs, excluding gaming. The trouble is people have no idea how to operate a PC or MAC. If every thing was one hundred percent automated then the restrictions on computers would be so great no one would touch them. It is unfortunate such a powerful machine takes a little bit of thought and knowledge to operate. I do suppose we are just the time where people expect to be as lazy as possible (Rob! :evil: ) so they except a product like a PC or MAC to be a lazily operated machine. Their expectations are not that far from a reality, unfortunately they have no idea what small key things they need to do, or not do, to make a PC or MAC function in a lazy capacity manner. The work involved in a healthy operating PC or MAC is very little, but is rarely ever done. Also it does not help most people own crappy PC's or Imac's that were grandpa's technology when they hit the market.
Rob please do not think I want you to play PC games... I just mention the less of two evil's for the hight of pure gaming on a level not seen by the normal individual. I also will not tell you not to play them, that is my choice, I know what good can comes from them, and bad.
-
I dunno about that...my brother has a pretty decent PC, 3.0 Gig Northwood Pentium, midlevel ATI card, and it flatly won't play Diablo 2. It just bogs down to a crawl. I've seen that with a lot of games on several machines.
sounds like not enough ram or pc miscogfiguration (swap file size ect)
-
I have a PC that can run games okay, with an Audigy sound card, Cambridge Soundworks 5.1 speaker system etc etc.
I just find that playing on a console makes it more of a Home Theater experience. Regardless of how much ram, whether it's the lastest video card, what processor a PC has I don't think a PC can come close to comparing to the kind of experience a console can give on a serious HT system with a big screen TV.
The best 'you are there' experiences I have had on my HT rig has been Polar Express on DVD and Project Gotham Racing 2 in the first person perspective controller in hand resting on my lap while sunk into my big comfy couch with the sound cranked and subs a rumblin in full 5.1 surround sound. Absolutely Awesome!!! Like a roller coaster ride. PC's can't compete with that.
-
I didn't take it as you being a dick. And for the record, he is fairly computer savvy, but I didn't build it for him (I know he has 1 Gig of very low CAS latency DDR...). But obviously that makes one of my points for me, right? Something's wrong and you really need to be a borderline expert to figure out what. That's not something you run into with consoles. Sure, occasionally you have a glitch or a bug and a game might hang up, but compatability & misconfiguration issues don't exist. That's the beauty of console gaming.
Let's not forget that a console is also a computer. The Xbox, for instance, used a Pentium and a vid card not all that different than your PC might use. We're not comparing apples to oranges so much as navel oranges to blood oranges. :wink:
-
I'm a console gamer, as I like the simplicity of setup and the need to upgrade every 4-5 years or so. However, I'm quite aware of how much better a PC is graphically, if it's totally tweaked out. However, graphics always takes second place to art direction and gameplay to me, which is why I stay on the console side because, IMO, the best software designer- Nintendo- only designs for consoles. Also, no doubt in my mind that the controller is far inferior to the mouse and keyboard on first person shooters. I hope the Nintendo Revolution controller will address this gap, as it's supposed to be quite innovative.
Michael
-
I guess it's what you're used to. I hate a mouse for FPS. And I flatly couldn't ever get used to a mouse for Diablo, try as I might.
-
ricmon I would actually first guess a problem with overloaded computer, to many programs, temporary internet files etc.... or I would turn to video card settings / drivers.
You can hook up a computer to a TV and surround sound receiver.... the key being having a TV with a good input that is HD. This makes every thing a win-win situation for the simple games like racing etc. so actually PC can more then compete with that with their endless input and output ability. Plus you can tweak the settings 10x more for color and every thing else.
If you want to play a more involved game (MMORPG) you will have to use a computer for it to be worth it. Yeah a big TV is cool, but a monitor in perspective gives you a more detailed look because you sit like less then two feet from it, and the picture is always better.
Rob I can understand you not being into a mouse for an FPS, if I was controller savvy I would not be either. However the argument will always stand true that a mouse gives you better control whether or not you like it. I would like to see you try playing CS:S with a controller :lol: ; hell I would play against you just to shoot you in the head while you where still turning.
Last note..... You would find my balls on top of my fridge in a spam container before you found a Celeron in a computer I built or purchased.
-
I don't use a Celeron. Well, okay- this computer I'm typing from is a Celeron, but it's just for monkeying around online. I've got a Pentium Northwood 3.0 built to the hilt that shares the monitor & stuff via KVM. Or I should say it was reasonably stout when I built it- it's no great shakes nowadays.
Next one I build with be an AMD...
Anyways, how would you shoot me at all? I don't dick around with online circle-jerk lan-ning!:P :lol:
-
I believe that you are not a participant of that.... I myself am not even aware of any one that is playing online (the internet) LAN (LOCAL area network).
You know the only truely good enemy to face in a game is another person. Sure AI have come a long ways (I knew some one who developed them in a game to the point of amazement) but until they really are self aware they will never fully compare. Granted enemies can be made to be impossible to beat via AI programming but that does not count, there are always weakness programmed in and only so many ways to deal with it.
-
I don't even have Xbox live at the moment, although I'll probably re-subscribe, if for no other reason than the downloadable content.
I'll still reeling from last years MechAssault drubbing at the hands of Bubba966! :oops: :lol:
-
I'll still reeling from last years MechAssault drubbing at the hands of Bubba966! :oops: :lol:
I think it's been at least 2 years since I whooped your ass at MA... :lol: :wink:
-
Maybe, but the wounds haven't healed yet- man I suck! :lol:
-
Maybe, but the wounds haven't healed yet- man I suck! :lol:
Get the Neosporin out and fix that! I've been payin' for Live for years. And other than whoopin your ass on MA for an hour, and playing H2 for a couple of hours I've not used it for playing online... :roll:
-
It's sad...for a while I was out of work, but now that I've gone back to the restaurant industry my work weeks are back to 50-75 hours. I have time working the same hours in to game like I did when I worked in a bank.
On the other hand, I now have a shitload of cash, so I can actually buy gear now- but I don't have time to play with it! :lol:
-
I now have a shitload of cash
Just the amount I like!
Why not keep the flow going for awhile and turn it into some thing other then equipment that has a little more.... financial stability and then get another 40 hour a week job.
-
Naw, I don't spend it all on gear. But all work and no play... :lol:
I'd probably go crazy working a 40 hr "normal job."
-
For me, I prefer PCs for my Halo and general gameplay, but Gran Turismo makes me want to get a PS3 someday for playing with friends. :o