RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS!

[Volourn]

"That said, I'll never understand why people who own both platforms would ever play big single-player CRPG's like Fallout: New Vegas, Skyrim or Dragon Age: Origins, or *any* shooters, on console. "

 

Because I don'ty feel like spending hundreds and thousands of dolalrs to continuaklly upgrade my computer. Computer games are too buggy in comparison, and I like to see PC fanboys cry when you inform them not everyone is sucking the weinner of the PC.

 

I played FO:NV on 360. It was good stuff. I tried DA on both PC and 360 and outside of the superior top down view, the 360 was the superior version. It doesn't lag, the journal was better, and it doesn't take up ridiculous amount of space on my ahrd drive.

[Malcador]

Because I don'ty feel like spending hundreds and thousands of dolalrs to continuaklly upgrade my computer. Computer games are too buggy in comparison, and I like to see PC fanboys cry when you inform them not everyone is sucking the weinner of the PC.

 

Hm, don't think consoles are really free from bugs all that much. Hardware being standard doesn't save from poor coding and testing, after all. That and they can patch over consoles too, so there's that laziness there. You don't need to 'continually' upgrade either.

[Majek]

The prospect of learning to play a shooter on a gamepad scares me.

Yes, there's a big risk of getting motion sickness. Beware.

 

 

 

But when you start playing you might even get to like it. I won't say i enjoy it, but i have no problems playing shooters on my ps3. I mean FPS with that, there never was any problem with 3rd person games which i think are best played with a controller anyway. Whatever genre. And i even enjoy playin the new XCOM on console, even if i can't turn off the camera that always zooms in in action.

[Fighter]

LOL. The reason is pretty shallow. I'm good at multiplayer fps. And moving to a console means loosing my skill.

 

Haven't owned a console since PS1. I missed the train on learning how to play with a controller.

[Guest Slinky]

The prospect of learning to play a shooter on a gamepad scares me.

But when you start playing you might even get to like it. I won't say i enjoy it, but i have no problems playing shooters on my ps3. I mean FPS with that, there never was any problem with 3rd person games which i think are best played with a controller anyway. Whatever genre. And i even enjoy playin the new XCOM on console, even if i can't turn off the camera that always zooms in in action.

 

To me using a pad for fps/shooter games is like driving around with a road roller instead of enduro bike. It gets the job done, but it sure ain't pretty. I'm used to accurate aiming and there's no way I would give that up.

[Zoraptor]

No it can't - trust me on that. Nobody is talking 6 months but xbox 360 has been out over 5 years now.

And any PC bought at the time of it's release will in the very least need an OS upgrade.

Consoles not only offer more value for money but they also allow for peace of mind as far technical issues and performance is concerned.

Okay, I picked up a fairly bleeding edge pc 6-7 years ago. Apart from having to replace the graphics card twice (because they died, not because of a need to make them better) , and a hard drive that also died needing to be replaced, I haven't had any issues and it still chews up modern games with no problem. And no, it still runs on the OS it came with.

My computer is six years old- celebrated it's birthday last week, I gave it a compressed air clean and a new internet connection as a present- was decidedly mid range and still plays everything I want absolutely fine. It's gone from a (nVidia, since it's so old now the numbers are overrunning) 7600GT to an (AMD) 5770, from 2GB to 4GB and from XP to Win7. All those additions cost less than a console does- going from 2 to 4GB RAM cost less than a cafe meal- and less than 200USD in total. And it's never once had a Red Ring of Death unlike those highly reliable safe as houses built to resist anything 360s.

 

Also what the ravening, unwashed console hordes* tend to forget in their desperate quest to discover fire, writing, abstract thought and the other things that the glorious PC gaming master race takes for granted is that their games don't even play at proper HD resolutions. While I am playing Dragon Age: Origins as God Intended at full detail 1920x1200 60+ fps with flashing bells, blowing whistles and clarion trumpets the poor unfortunate consolers are crawling in the dirt picking up the chaff of mere 720p and 30fps. That is after all why they're called consoles in the first place, their owners need to be consoled over their poor performance.

 

Of course what I actually buy a computer for is to do stuff on that ain't gaming. Gaming specific costs for this computer are actually zero, as I would have bought all the upgrades whether gaming or not. Since I need a computer anyway and there is no way I'm going to go the false economy route and deliberately buy something rubbish just to save a few short term dollars the only extra cost associated with making the computer a games one is- maybe- a better video card. Everything else I need anyway. And I can guarantee I'll be able to pick up a decent video card for less than the cost of a current gen console. I might actually get a whole system for less than a next gen console's starting price, given how much the PS3 was at release.

 

I'm actually likely to get a new computer this or next month, then I will probably put Linux onto this one. Just another thing I can do in the libertarian utopia of PC land that people living in regimented, totalitarian consoledonia (excluding hacked PS3) can only dream of, had they the imagination and ambition to dream.

 

*I did rather enjoy playing BG: Dark Alliance co-op on the PS2, and SSX was pretty cool too, but like Luke Skywalker I ultimately resisted rather than fell to the dark side and I totally do not own a 360 which if I did own I was certainly given and only use to play proper PC games that happen to be inflicted with steam and to totally stick it to The Man I would buy them 2nd hand as well. Hypothetically speaking.

[pmp10]

Also what the ravening, unwashed console hordes* tend to forget in their desperate quest to discover fire, writing, abstract thought and the other things that the glorious PC gaming master race takes for granted is that their games don't even play at proper HD resolutions. While I am playing Dragon Age: Origins as God Intended at full detail 1920x1200 60+ fps with flashing bells, blowing whistles and clarion trumpets the poor unfortunate consolers are crawling in the dirt picking up the chaff of mere 720p and 30fps. That is after all why they're called consoles in the first place, their owners need to be consoled over their poor performance.

Ahh yes - PC elitism.

Don't suppose it occurred to you that not everyone deems the difference worth the expense?

Especially since you yourself are far from the top of master-race food-chain and are doubtlessly looked down on by people playing with their crossfire setups on 5760x1200 thanks to the use of 3-monitors.

[alanschu]

The post seemed rather tongue in cheek.

[greylord]

The only question I'm asking myself is - which next gen console to invest in. Wii U is out of the question.

 

If it has to be one, then it's clearly PS4.

 

MS has sucky exclusives and sucky policies.

 

Its very likely you're right.

 

However I'm not impressed by the PS3, I feel they screwed it up. Too few exclusives, too few landmark games, practically no RPG's - certainly no exceptional ones and a small game library.

 

This makes me feel nervous about PS4. I don't want to invest in something that's going to have all the same multiplatform games (that the PC can do better).

 

Obviously the XboX360 is even worse in this regard. I'm still playing all of its (worthwhile) games on my wreck of a PC and they look better too.

 

But what if the next xbox is significantly cheaper (like half the price) of the next PS? That's something to consider.

 

You're looking in the wrong market. Remember, PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1 games. I can play all the PS1 RPGs on my PS3.

 

In addition, PS3 has had plenty of RPGs...released internationally when talking about the US....

 

Of course that means you'd have to import. Half of them are not really what Western audiences are into though...such as the Atelier series, the Agarest series which made it to the west...some of those that didn't copy that type of humor and behavior....

 

My PS3 also plays all my PS2 RPGs...so in truth I have FAR more RPGs that can play on my PS3 than I do on any other system...inclusive of my PC right now.

[greylord]

But what if the next xbox is significantly cheaper (like half the price) of the next PS? That's something to consider.

 

Unlikely. MS is also moving away with Xbox as a dedicated gaming console and more towards an overall entertainment hub. It's also gonna include some motion-control gimmick which will make the whole package probably more expensive.

 

Also, the PS3 has plenty of great exclusives (MGS4, Heavy Rain, Uncharted series, The Last of Us, Beyond, The Last Guardian, Demon's Souls and many more). Just no real dedicated RPGs. But that genre is as good as dead anyway (minus Obsidian).

 

They had a few actually.

 

I beleive the Atelier series was a PS3 exclusive. I'm not positive on some but I think they also were overall everywhere...of these but I think White Knight Chronicles was an exclusive...Valkyria chronicles, Folklore, Cross Edge, Trinity Universe, Disgaea, Altelier Tonelico, Hyper Dimension Neptunia, Persona 4 and most recently Mugen Souls.

 

Could be wrong on some of them as with so many games going cross platform these days it's hard to tell which ones are exclusives and which aren't.

 

For example...Resonance of Fate was pretty cool...more what I'd have expected to see as a PS exclusive in the past, but it turned out it was a cross platform game.

[greylord]

I've never had a console, but I don't see the advantage of having a console over a PC (with the exception of someone not used to computer tech) :

- you can have a PC for the same price (more or less, just avoid the top of the tech)

- you can connect the PC to a TV set, put controllers and play on your sofa.

- you can mod games with a PC

- you can also use your PC as a computer

But I'm open to different opinions, since I don't have a console, I can't judge.

 

I have both and I can attest to at least part of this. I connected my gaming PC up to an HDTV (smaller one about 36") and game from the bed with the PC sometimes...though I prefer keyboard and mouse so a little TV table off to the side and the keyboard on my lap.

[greylord]

Silicon Knights getting screwed for screwing around with Epic Games

 

Haha, serves them right.

New game - $50/$60

Silicon Knights game in bargain bin - less than $10

Court ruling - priceless

 

Does this mean my copy of X-men Destiny will be worth a small fortune of Genetic mutations in a few years or so?

 

Naw...probably not...games still was pretty bad.

[Zoraptor]

Don't suppose it occurred to you that not everyone deems the difference worth the expense?

I think it probably has occurred to me since...

Especially since you yourself are far from the top of master-race food-chain and are doubtlessly looked down on by people playing with their crossfire setups on 5760x1200 thanks to the use of 3-monitors.

I'm not using that sort of set up and bought a militantly mid range replacement for my militantly mid range original card. Besides, anyone who looks down on someone because they own/ don't own a certain piece of hardware is in desperate need of some perspective in life (but that is inevitably where this sort of discussion ends up so might as well get it out of the way while making it look obviously stupid).

 

If you'd like the hyperbole stripped away then for me, getting a computer capable of playing games has saved a lot of money over buying a console. Chances are that if you actually bought a 360 six years ago you will have had an RROD or had to replace it out of warranty, and you will have paid more per game on average, paid a lot up front and had something that is a lot less flexible than a PC. And that is without considering whether you'd have needed Gold Live. If you need a computer anyway then a console is a false economy, especially a new generation one- so long as you aren't in it for the epeen then it's perfectly plausible (perhaps even likely) that a computer is a better economic choice because you'll be spending the bulk of the money required anyway. After all, people don't include the cost of a 40+ inch TV in the cost of a console.

[LadyCrimson]

So far, consoles still haven't been making enough games that make me want to spend the money to have one. Once in a great while there's a console-only game I might be mildly interested in, but that's a once in a blue moon exception. I'd buy/maintain a PC regardless, and hubs just tosses together PC's to attach to the big TV when he wants it, so for me ... not much incentive/reason to double-up.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The only question I'm asking myself is - which next gen console to invest in. Wii U is out of the question.

 

If it has to be one, then it's clearly PS4.

 

MS has sucky exclusives and sucky policies.

 

Its very likely you're right.

 

However I'm not impressed by the PS3, I feel they screwed it up. Too few exclusives, too few landmark games, practically no RPG's - certainly no exceptional ones and a small game library.

 

This makes me feel nervous about PS4. I don't want to invest in something that's going to have all the same multiplatform games (that the PC can do better).

 

Obviously the XboX360 is even worse in this regard. I'm still playing all of its (worthwhile) games on my wreck of a PC and they look better too.

 

But what if the next xbox is significantly cheaper (like half the price) of the next PS? That's something to consider.

 

You're looking in the wrong market. Remember, PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1 games. I can play all the PS1 RPGs on my PS3.

 

In addition, PS3 has had plenty of RPGs...released internationally when talking about the US....

 

Of course that means you'd have to import. Half of them are not really what Western audiences are into though...such as the Atelier series, the Agarest series which made it to the west...some of those that didn't copy that type of humor and behavior....

 

My PS3 also plays all my PS2 RPGs...so in truth I have FAR more RPGs that can play on my PS3 than I do on any other system...inclusive of my PC right now.

 

I believe only the first versions of the PS3, the fat one are backwards compatible. The rest (indeed all of the ones available now on the market) omitted PS2 hardware to reduce costs. That's what I read on the wiki...

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't know what console games look like on new TV's but one thing to take into consideration is that the lower resolutions that consoles work on are adapted for those tvs. You're not sitting as close as you would to a PC monitor and the tv blurs a lot of those jagged edges that would stick out like a sore thumb on a PC.

 

My PS2 games look great on an old CRT,(comparatively speaking, much better than many games of the time on the PC) while those same games emulated on the PC look like crap.

 

But please, continue with the **** slinging.

 

Because the PC computer and console computer are two computers and there is only space for one in this town.

[greylord]

The only question I'm asking myself is - which next gen console to invest in. Wii U is out of the question.

 

If it has to be one, then it's clearly PS4.

 

MS has sucky exclusives and sucky policies.

 

Its very likely you're right.

 

However I'm not impressed by the PS3, I feel they screwed it up. Too few exclusives, too few landmark games, practically no RPG's - certainly no exceptional ones and a small game library.

 

This makes me feel nervous about PS4. I don't want to invest in something that's going to have all the same multiplatform games (that the PC can do better).

 

Obviously the XboX360 is even worse in this regard. I'm still playing all of its (worthwhile) games on my wreck of a PC and they look better too.

 

But what if the next xbox is significantly cheaper (like half the price) of the next PS? That's something to consider.

 

You're looking in the wrong market. Remember, PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1 games. I can play all the PS1 RPGs on my PS3.

 

In addition, PS3 has had plenty of RPGs...released internationally when talking about the US....

 

Of course that means you'd have to import. Half of them are not really what Western audiences are into though...such as the Atelier series, the Agarest series which made it to the west...some of those that didn't copy that type of humor and behavior....

 

My PS3 also plays all my PS2 RPGs...so in truth I have FAR more RPGs that can play on my PS3 than I do on any other system...inclusive of my PC right now.

 

I believe only the first versions of the PS3, the fat one are backwards compatible. The rest (indeed all of the ones available now on the market) omitted PS2 hardware to reduce costs. That's what I read on the wiki...

 

you are correct on the PS2 front. However, as long as you have the current system update, all PS3's play PS1 games at this point.

 

Speculation has it that the PS4 will also play PS2 games, IF the PS2 new sales are completely phased out by the time it comes out.

 

I was an early adopter I guess and have the PS3 fat with backwards compatibility. What's even better is it's a pretty easy breeze to upgrade the hard drive.

 

PS: Been a console and a PC gamer on both sides of the coin, so can't say I'd go with one or the other.

Edited November 10, 2012 by greylord

[Morgoth]

Speculation has it that the PS4 will also play PS2 games, IF the PS2 new sales are completely phased out by the time it comes out.

 

Then you heard wrong. For that, they'd need to implement actual PS2 hardware with it (Software emulation sucks). Technically possible, but not a priority for Sony.

 

I think they're gonna let a few selected PS2 and PS3 titles stream through Gaikai.

[Nepenthe]

If I could actually have a decent gaming PC for the price of a console, obviously I would have one. As it is, I've gotten both my consoles for less than half of what a decent gaming PC would cost me, so either a) you guys are talking out of your asses, b) I live in a country with a seriously uncompetitive PC parts market or c) both.

 

Frankly, I suspect that when you're comparing prices you're not calculating all the actual costs of a pc but something like mobo+gfx card+memory at best.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah the cheapest PS3 here is about 310$/240€. While a prebuild mid range PC (all included) would be 520$/400€ (you could probably build one yourself for 300-400$). And you'd have to upgrade it every 5-7 years (for about 200-400$ I would guess) to play the new games. To me that seems like consoles win in the long run money wise - but I don't know about discount on games for consoles, new ones are about 100$ while it's ~60$ for the expensive ones on PC. But with Steam is easy to get fairly new games for 20€/25$.

[Raithe]

If I could actually have a decent gaming PC for the price of a console, obviously I would have one. As it is, I've gotten both my consoles for less than half of what a decent gaming PC would cost me, so either a) you guys are talking out of your asses, b) I live in a country with a seriously uncompetitive PC parts market or c) both.

 

Frankly, I suspect that when you're comparing prices you're not calculating all the actual costs of a pc but something like mobo+gfx card+memory at best.

 

I think it depends on just where you know how to shop.

I mean, currently the crop of consoles in the UK seem to be around the £170-240 mark, and that's with the next-generation consoles in the near future, so go back a bit in time and the price was higher.

Compared to that, you can pick up a low-to-mid range pc for around £300-500. Hell, if you buy a pc without a graphics card and pick up something like an NVidia GT630 seperately, you'll be talking around £250-350.

 

I guess a large part of that comes down to "are you only going to use it for gaming?".

To me, whenever I've thought of looking at consoles it always seems that the price of console games has been about 20% more then the pc version of the game. So in the long term of a year or three picking up games the price would actually even out. So that combined with how much I use a pc for other things besides gaming pushes the pc into the superior choice for myself.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The only problem is that you're likely to buy a PC anyway. However, even the combined price of a basic netbook + console is still less than what a gaming rig would come down to and you have the benefit of having two devices.

 

However one issue is important - the dropping quality of console (and PC, but more important on the console) hardware. The fact that Sony gives only a one year warranty (the same that you would get for a hair dryer) tells you a lot about their projected failure rates.

 

That's worrying, while I can open the PS2 and clean the laser what am I going to do if the PS3 screws up after the warranty expires? According to wiki, I think the failure rate for the PS3 is 10%, and while its not near the horrid X360 that's still pretty bad.

 

More importantly, what is this going to mean for the next generation. PS2 was worse than PS1, and PS3 is worse than both in terms of hardware quality.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Labadal]

PS2 games emulated on PC look really good. DQ VIII, FFXII and Gow II are some examples of great looking games. I also have Xenoblade Chronicles for Wii that I have been playing on PC. (Had to loan a friends hacked Wii.)

 

I buy consoles and handhelds because I know there are interesting games on those systems that won't get a PC release. That doesn't mean I don't like PC games. I wouldn't have a big PC games collection and I sure as hell wouldn't have spent half a month's salary to pledge to a game if that was not the case.

 

I own a PS3 and have about 20 exclusive games for it. A lot of these games probably won't appeal to PC gamers, and I don't see any problem with that. On Xbox 360, I don't own as many exlcuisves, but I own enough to make it worth owning the system. Then I have exclusive games for their respective digital stores.

[Humanoid]

Just to show how much the low end has progressed in PC graphics, the GT630 cited there is a rebadged GT440 and is slower than a 8800GT, released in *2007*.

 

The PS4 dev kit that's been released is based on the Trinity APU. I'd definitely consider a Trinity-based system if building a bare basic gaming PC, it's by no means speedy: the CPU is weak, and the GPU is only marginally faster than the GT630/440. It's slower than the GT640 and is about on par with the HD5570. Impressive? No. It's taken five years for integrated graphics to match the mainstream discrete solutions. But it's good enough for playable framerates, and I daresay superior ones to consoles, in a variety of modern titles like Skyrim and whatever ho-hum modern shooter you care to play on moderate settings. Price? Example build:

 

AMD A10-5800K - $130

AsRock FM2 board - $65

4GB of some basic memory - $20

64GB SSD - $60 (yes I'm including an SSD in a basic system build, shh)

Basic case with included PSU - $60 (can go cheaper but I have *some* standards)

Input peripherals - $15

 

I'm going to cheat and say you migrate your old OS licence over from an older box. What, you haven't owned a PC since WinXP was released? Also going to assume your games will mostly be digital downloads from Steam or GMG or whatever at about a half to a third of the price of console titles.

 

So a wee bit more, or a fair chunk more if you need a gaming OS. And some big omissions of course, disk space for one means you won't have too many games installed at once, but you can sub in a 500GB spindle drive for pretty much the same price. There's also no optical drive nor Wi-Fi, each of those would add about $20 each. Maybe I'll call it a 'luxury pack': add Wi-Fi, DVD and a spindle drive for $100 extra.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Humanoid

[Monte Carlo]

Hmmm Blizzard being sued for a change...

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/10/blizzard-sued-over-security-concerns-authenticators/

 

The legal argument over authenticators is interesting. What do the rest of you think? Is it really like buying a car, then someone saying "Oh, by the way, it's a doddle to break into, you need to buy our new alarm system to protect it!"

 

Or, conversely, is it like providing a computer then not unreasonably charging money for extra anti-virus?