Why buy a console?

[Evolixe]

You've misread me. What I am saying is that no PC from 2005-2006 can run games such as Skyrim, Arkham City, BF3 etc. (either at all or to the same graphical fidelity) that are available for the Xbox360 or PS3 who were available since then.

That is not true.

Also, the console games are made for the consoles. In other words, their graphical quality is far lower than it could be because of the severely lacking hardware in there.
Compare BF3 on the Xbox to BF3 on the computer and tell me that you don't see a noticable difference with a straight face.

Current gen consoles lasted 3,5 years more than it should have. It's amazing nobody rang a bell sooner.

[Gunslinger]

That is not true.

Also, the console games are made for the consoles. In other words, their graphical quality is far lower than it could be because of the severely lacking hardware in there.
Compare BF3 on the Xbox to BF3 on the computer and tell me that you don't see a noticable difference with a straight face.

Current gen consoles lasted 3,5 years more than it should have. It's amazing nobody rang a bell sooner.

You're surely trollin'.

Minimum Requirements for Arkham City
Core 2 Duo E4600 2.4GHz - Q4 2007 processor
Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+ - 2008 processor
GeForce 315 512MB - February 2010 video card
Radeon HD 5450 256MB - February 2010 video card
2 GB RAM

All these for the LOWEST graphical settings on the sub HD resolution. Best video card you could get in 2007 was 8800GT which would get you to run the game but again in DX9 (Xbox360 has a far improved version more akin to DX10 and PS3 uses it's own "thing"). Regardless of that you'd still be shelving out a TON more money than just buying the console. However my point still stands. You would need a PC that came 2 years AFTER the release of the Xbox360 to even get games that currently run on the console to start up and you'd have to play them at FAR WORSE graphical fidelity than you would do on a console.

It's obvious PCs have improved and due to the available horsepower they will look better on PC, HOWEVER the best (looking) graphics you'll find in console exclusives. Don't believe me? Check the awards. Some graphical engines were made with consoles in mind and can milk them quite nicely. Multiplatform games will ALWAYS look better on PC because you can invest and improve your PC over time (however that implies trowing cash into it at a rather steady 2-3 year pace).

Here's a tech demo for the PS3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPCw09-DNFg

Here's an upcoming title Beyond Two Souls for the PS3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzWTrwzT4RU

Sad fact is due to the overgrowing PC tech developers can't keep up mixing and matching specific PC configurations and don't take full advantage of the platform, while right now it's not the case with consoles. I say it's pretty impressive what they can pull off with something that was launched in 2005 (2006 for the PS3 in this case).

Here's a trailer for the next Gears of War http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFwbCSLockE

Personally I think PS3 exclusives look just a bit better, PC has the definite edge on multiplatform games, yet visually I'm impressed by what they can pull off with the limited hardware. And apparently you're in the minority since (and I hope by now you've looked up graphic awards for games) the critics agree that consoles milk out prettier and more detailed environments & characters compared to the available PC games.

* If you didn't look it up for 2009 Best graphics was Uncharted 2 (PS3 exclusive), Arkham Asylum (Multiplatform)
** For 2010 Best graphics was God of War 3 (PS3 exclusive) for the majority of critics, Gran Turismo 5 (PS3 exclusive) and Red Dead Redemption (Xbox360, PS3 exclusive)
*** 2011 Best graphics was considered Uncharted 3 (PS3 exclusive) by the majority of critics

Here's a list of Game of the Year winners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_year

Edit: Even if you want to touch BF3 on a PC you'd still need a rig from late 2007 to play it at the LOWEST DETAILS and would be FAR inferior to the console version. Again CURRENT computer configurations 2010 and up have been able to get higher quality graphics due to :
1) DX11 support which the consoles lack
2) More horsepower
3) Evergrowing PC components
4) Drivers

All these however require a constant PC upgrade every 2-3 years as well as more money invested than a console and LACKs titles and all the things I've already mentioned in my original post and follow-up clarifications.

[Evolixe]

As i said, next gen consoles is 3,5 years late. We should have been in the 5th (counting from ps1) by now already. But console makers are slacking. The fact that the consoles still run those games is not because the console is that awesome, it's because the game is that "shit" just to say it that way.

Oh and http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2011...ex.html?page=4

There is nothing coming anytime soon cracking the awesome visuals of Crysis, if you so desire i can record what it looks like on ultra DX11 with high res texture pack.
I guarantee you, if you would try to let your Xbox or PS3 run it like that, it would explode.

[Lemmiwink]

I have a PS3 and a XBox. Reason; need the PS3 for playing football games like fifa, PES. The xbox I bought because they released a slim version that looked very nice.

Do I regret buying these? Yes and no. The PS3 is vastly superior to a PC for fifa and PES (yes, have had the PC versions and didn't like it), but all in all the PC beats the PS3 and Xbox in everything else. And it has from day one. Console gaming has ruined lots of PC games the last years due to game makers making a game for console then porting it to PC, lowering the quality in the process.

What I wish for in the next generation of consoles:
1. That they stop making AAA titles for consoles first and port to PC. Rather have it the other way around as this lowers the quality of the PC-game!
2. That they stop releasing all console games on a disc. Im so sick of scratched up disks that won't even play a year after you bought them.
3. That they release proper gaming peripherals on consoles. A few console only games would work better with keyboard and mouse. Controllers are usually crap.
4. That they stop releasing things like Kinect etc. This is stupid, expensive and hyped every time. All games produced for this is frikkin party games a'la wii sports that has no gaming value what so ever. I can only run down a river on a log so many times before I feel the barf coming into my mouth. Stop trying to excercise me infront of the TV. I can do that myself using hi-tec shit like a bike or a football etc.

[Deleted]

I've been looking at the titles available and I can't really find any gaming titles for either console that I can't either get for PC, or simply don't justify the purchase of a console.

It would be adventure or RPG genre games that would hold my interest, but many such titles for the PS3 are often ones I really don't like, like many Japanese titles that I find horrendous. And some games are available for PC as well.
I've been unable to find enough games to justify it.

I can understand someone buying a console if they have a poor PC or no PC at all. But if you, like me, have a monster PC, getting a console only seems like a downgrade in all ways.

I used to think that before I got my PS3 too tho. Have you tried those games or is this "boring trailer, meh"? At first, I didnt think something like god of war was something I would be intrested on. Something "meh, I could just stick with my pc and wii, doesnt matter".

But after playing god of war 3 and the HD collection with previous ones, I was glad I did. The games were damn awesome. Same with vanquish, bayonetta, enslaved, ninja gaiden 2..all something I'd just shrug to, but after playing I wouldnt believe I didnt have interests on those..they were just my type of games :P
Looks like you'd want PS3 if you look for adventure games and rpgs.

If you actually plan to get either one. If you are deep into pc-master-race mentality, it probably aint for you. Tho if any of your friends have ps3 I'd suggest trying the games I mentioned out in at least demo form. /shrug

[Gunslinger]

As i said, next gen consoles is 3,5 years late. We should have been in the 5th (counting from ps1) by now already. But console makers are slacking. The fact that the consoles still run those games is not because the console is that awesome, it's because the game is that "shit" just to say it that way.

Oh and http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2011...ex.html?page=4

There is nothing coming anytime soon cracking the awesome visuals of Crysis, if you so desire i can record what it looks like on ultra DX11 with high res texture pack.
I guarantee you, if you would try to let your Xbox or PS3 run it like that, it would explode.

As I've said 2011 Best Graphics - Uncharted 3 PS3 exclusive : http://www.ign.com/wikis/best-of-2011/Best_Graphics ; http://www.spike.com/events/video-ga.../best-graphics

I'll record Beyond Two Souls for the PS3, Gears of War 4 for Xbox 360 for you. If you tried to play them on your PC they'd redirect you to your local console store to get in on the fun

Read my previous reply for trailers.

Edit: If a console generation would only last 3-4 years what would of been the point? Only last year were the devs able to push the consoles to their limit (6 years after the Xbox360 launch, 5 years after the PS3 launch).

Edit 2: After seeing the latest tech demos for the next Unreal engine & Luminous it's safe to say that the current generation will live at least until the end of 2013. Right now every major developer is working or began work for games on the next engine and if say PS4 launched 2-3 years ago then the graphical difference between the two consoles would have been minimal at best (10-15%). Right now MS & Sony aim to please. They've got to provide something affordable yet powerful that is optimized for the next graphic engines. The sooner U4 & Luminous become commercially available for all devs the faster MS & Sony will be pressed to launch their consoles. Each generation was dictated by the increase of quality in gfx engines. Several studios developed their own engines to take advantage either of consoles or PC. As a dev it's FAR easier and cost effective to produce games for a static configuration rather than a multitude of PC configurations out there.

[Shinzai]

As I've said 2011 Best Graphics - Uncharted 3 PS3 exclusive : http://www.ign.com/wikis/best-of-2011/Best_Graphics ; http://www.spike.com/events/video-ga.../best-graphics

I'll record Beyond Two Souls for the PS3, Gears of War 4 for Xbox 360 for you. If you tried to play them on your PC they'd redirect you to your local console store to get in on the fun

Read my previous reply for trailers.

Edit: If a console generation would only last 3-4 years what would of been the point? Only last year were the devs able to push the consoles to their limit (6 years after the Xbox360 launch, 5 years after the PS3 launch).

Sorry, but, who actually cares what won best graphics of 2011? 2011 was a year of gameplay, not graphics. Almost every game released was visually mediocre at best. Uncharted 3 didn't even have to try to win that contest.

Simple fact: Crysis 1 DX10 Ultra still surpasses anything ever shown on a console.

[Deleted]

i like consoles but there is no way in hell uncharted 3 is better than even crysis (the original) in terms of graphics.

[aeir]

to play fifa, ofc.

[Deleted]

to play fifa, ofc.

haha so true, and the arguement that you can play it on the pc isnt valid cause its just not the same... its just one of those games which feels soooo weird and wrong to play on the pc (only my opinion obviously).

[Evolixe]

Edit: If a console generation would only last 3-4 years what would of been the point? Only last year were the devs able to push the consoles to their limit (6 years after the Xbox360 launch, 5 years after the PS3 launch).

That's about the lifetime of every console generation post-nintendo. PS1/PS2/Xbox all lasted about that long and this generation should have been no different.

[Deleted]

Cause the bastards don't release some of the greatest games also on the PC. Looking at Halo-s after 1, Gears of War, Mortal Kombat, etc.

The industry should really come up with 1(one) platform for games and which supports all controllers.

[Evolixe]

Cause the bastards don't release some of the greatest games also on the PC. Looking at Halo-s after 1, Gears of War, Mortal Kombat, etc.

The industry should really come up with 1(one) platform for games and which supports all controllers.

But then they have to hire 1 more full time worker to make proper controls

[Deleted]

Social Life as a gamer. You do not even have a gaming social life (which menas real life interactions)? Then you dont need one.

And God of Mothereffin' War.

[Kuthe]

lol uhhh no

Hey Final Fantasy 13, 13-2.

And uhm.
There are others, I just can't remember which ones.

[Shinzai]

I agree with Holo, as I've said numerous times before, the current console generation is killing any advances or innovation in gaming visuals (DX 9 equivalent at best), not to mention on a sheer data/space level (Xbox 360 forcing everything onto 1 DVD, to avoid requiring any HDD usage for those that don't have them). The sheer fact that games have to be able to run from a single DVD is kind of mind blowing in this day and age. Yes Sony half shot themselves in the foot by using Blu-Rays, due to the price factor, but on the other hand, it made certain games possible that would require out-right ridiculous amounts of DVDs to play. This means that hi-res textures are generally a no-go and that games have to be designed around very strict space limits for levels/sounds/textures/etc.

Now that Blu-Ray is a common technology, all systems should have access to it. Hell, I'm waiting for them to start pushing Blu-Ray PC games; no more of this bollocks of having to download hi-res texture packs and the like separately. And as pointed out, by myself in the past and others here, the consoles tend not to actually run games in 1080p. It's normally 1280x720, or some bastardised mid-resolution in between. That in particular annoys me, when they rave about having HD graphics, then you find out it's blocky textures and some sub 720p res.

Don't get me wrong though; I can't say that there haven't been good games on the recent consoles. There have been a lot of good games, but most people tend to get the feeling that they could have been better, if designed for PC first. It still annoys me that Rockstar never even attempted to put Red Dead Redemption on PC. And yet, next year, we see that almost all the major games (outside of arcade types (fighters/shooters/etc)) are coming out on PC, with far better graphics than the consoles will be able to handle at max (Yeah, I don't buy half of the demos at E3 being played on a 360, more likely a pad hooked up to a PC or a hybrid).

Games like Beyond Two Souls may look visually impressive, but it's because they're cleverly deceptive; everything is scripted and allows zero freedom, other than press button 1/2/3 or 4, then watch the results. Games like this can afford to look alot better because it's basically just huge amounts of animations stored and waiting to be activated, depending on what path the player chooses. The areas themselves will be static and non-interactive, just pretty backgrounds. This means that the main characters can look great, because nothing else is actually using much processing power. Try to make the PS3 perform a heavy load of Havok or Physx physics based interactions, and it has a fit.

[BHD]

1. For the exclusive games (I bought my xbox 360 solely for Naruto - Rise of a Ninja/Broken Bond).
2. More often than not easier to play co-op since most people have an extra controller, if not several.
3. When you're +2 people and want to play you simply can't play on a single PC, but you can play on a single console, making it a great piece of entertainment for when you have more friends over!
4. Easier to move around for LAN-parties, if no one can drive you (or you can't drive yourself) you probably don't want to carry a PC/Monitor on a bus, but it's cool with a console. Assuming the one holding in the party has several monitors already.

If you just want to play by yourself and you want the most optimal experience it's PC> all, always. There's a few decent emulators for a couple of consoles too.

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 10:48 AM ----------

2. That they stop releasing all console games on a disc. Im so sick of scratched up disks that won't even play a year after you bought them.

You can buy games digitally. Hell, ALL arcade games for the xbox are digital. Sure, you can buy a few of them on a disc too, but they're available directly from XBL.

[Usagi Senshi]

Why buy a console (even though my PC blows away all current consoles and most likely their next-gen version as well)? While I'll never buy another Microsoft or Sony console, I will always buy Nintendo consoles because they still make some of the best 1st party games in the world and their consoles are the only places to play those games. That and I've been a Nintendo fan since 1986!

So yes, I will be buying a Wii U (doesn't look to bad as it seems to be using a late-2008 AMD card) and I have my awesome 3DS XL already!

[ShatteredAwe]

If your favorite games come out CONSISTENTLY on console, then buy a console.

If not then just stick to PC.

[Deleted]

haha so true, and the arguement that you can play it on the pc isnt valid cause its just not the same... its just one of those games which feels soooo weird and wrong to play on the pc (only my opinion obviously).

I play it with a XBOX360 Controller - its 100% the same, except Graphics look 100% better and Loading-Times are 500% faster.