PCs and Consoles and Clouds... Oh My!

[zomboid]

Since some interesting, off-topic discussion has popped up in the "hello my name is" thread - I thought I'd whip up a new one to continue it in...

I've always been a predominately console-oriented gamer, aside from some fond memories playing Alone in the Dark, Space Hulk and Darkseed on a roommate's computer. I've worked in advertising and pre-press for the last 15 years, so naturally I'm a Mac guy. Add to that I can't play most FPS games, and aside from Dawn of War - don't like RTS games very much. So, yeah - I'm a console guy. I love playing games with a controller - especially the new wireless ones. I love playing on the couch. I love playing on the biggest screen in my house, and above all I love the simplicity of it all.

Now that I have a Mac that can run Windows, I've installed XP, joined Steam and Gametap so that I can explore all the cool stuff that I've been missing. It's been fun, but truth be told, I keep heading back to the couch to catch up on my console backlog more often than not. So, yeah I like to try new things, but often fall back on what's comfortable.

Thing is, it's kind of off-putting sometimes how PC-centric gamers seem to refer to console gaming as some crude and unsophisticated pursuit of the unwashed masses, etc... I'm not calling out anybody here specifically - because I don't notice it as much around here - but the vibe still lingers.

People saying stuff like "I just can't understand why someone would rather play a game on a console" seems alien and weird to me because I come from the other side.

Anyways - sorry to ramble a bit, I just wanted to chime in and offer another point of view.

[lobotomy42]

I used to be a PC-centric gamer. But then I discovered consoles, which are:

a) cheaper

more reliable

c) free of the peer-pressure to constantly upgrade so you can get a SLIGHTLY HIGHER FRAMERATE!!!!!

d) don't suddenly stop running older games (as long as I have my SNES, I can still play SNES games)

Consoles have so many fewer headaches associated with them, that...I can't understand why people would play anything on a PC! But, hey, to each his own.

[LOPcagney]

Now that I have a Mac that can run Windows, I've installed XP, joined Steam and Gametap so that I can explore all the cool stuff that I've been missing. It's been fun, but truth be told, I keep heading back to the couch to catch up on my console backlog more often than not. So, yeah I like to try new things, but often fall back on what's comfortable.

It's interesting. When I got my Wii, it was the first console (besides a used N64) that I'd ever owned, and eventually, I fell back in the habit of just playing stuff on my PC because I thought it was easier and more convenient (it's right there, even when you're doing other things). I guess it's just that whatever you're used to feels more natural.

Consoles and PCs both have many advantages. I prefer PCs because I like access to indie games (unpublished) and easily downloadable user-generated content for games like TF2, as well as just having access to the PC's library of games, which tends to be more extensive than any one console. Whether that's worth the inconvenience of constantly upgrading to stay ahead of the graphical curve is up to debate.

[syntheticgerbil]

I used to be a PC-centric gamer. But then I discovered consoles, which are:

a) cheaper

more reliable

c) free of the peer-pressure to constantly upgrade so you can get a SLIGHTLY HIGHER FRAMERATE!!!!!

d) don't suddenly stop running older games (as long as I have my SNES, I can still play SNES games)

Consoles have so many fewer headaches associated with them, that...I can't understand why people would play anything on a PC! But, hey, to each his own.

I come from exactly where you do.

To be fair to PCs, I think most PC gamers prefer the convenience of being able to play everything on one system as well as having more options to customize everything from their setup, their controls, and their display.

Hell, if I had a lot more money, I could see myself nerding out and constantly upgrading my PC to play the newest games.

One thing I don't like though is how consoles are getting closer and closer to being basically PCs which defeats the purpose in my eyes. The amount of updating you do alone in this current generation is kind of silly.

[LOPcagney]

One thing I don't like though is how consoles are getting closer and closer to being basically PCs which defeats the purpose in my eyes. The amount of updating you do alone in this current generation is kind of silly.

Likewise, services like Steam and whatever Microsoft's game manager is called are slowly making PCs resemble consoles more and more.

[elmuerte]

Add to that I can't play most FPS games, and aside from Dawn of War - don't like RTS games very much. So, yeah - I'm a console guy.

There is so much more to do on PCs, like adventure, action/adventure, racing, turn based strategy, platform games, etc. Pretty much any genre on the consoles can also be played on the PC. The same is mostly true vice versa (specially with the current generation of consoles). So I don't get you conclusion from that perspective.

I love playing games with a controller - especially the new wireless ones.

Can be done on PCs.

I love playing on the couch.

Can also be done with PC games, I've done it quite a few times (doesn't work well in case of games that require fast mouse reations).

I love playing on the biggest screen in my house,

The biggest working screen is my monitor, but considering I'm not more than 1m away from it it doesn't need to me ginormous.

and above all I love the simplicity of it all.

What simplicity? How much you have to hook up to get the hardware working initially?

Thing is, it's kind of off-putting sometimes how PC-centric gamers seem to refer to console gaming as some crude and unsophisticated pursuit of the unwashed masses, etc... I'm not calling out anybody here specifically - because I don't notice it as much around here - but the vibe still lingers.

Not much different from the PS3 vs XBox360 crowd. It's just a bit of fanboism.

a) cheaper

But games are way more expensive, also, a TV isn't free either. Not everybody owns a TV. (see "c)" for more comments).

more reliable

None of my PCs ever ROR'ed; and amazingly MS managed to prevent BSOD from being something you would see more than once a year.

c) free of the peer-pressure to constantly upgrade so you can get a SLIGHTLY HIGHER FRAMERATE!!!!!

Never had that to be honest. I've bought 3 workstations in the last 10 years, and they were all below high-end (still quite high-end). But then again, I do more than just play an occasional game, and email, and browse the web. So I do want some better hardware. But yes, decent hardware is more expensive than a console, and ages faster because game devs don't target a single configuration for 5 years.

d) don't suddenly stop running older games (as long as I have my SNES, I can still play SNES games)

If you don't upgrade your hardware and/org OS then you will still be able to play those old games. And in the last few years a lot of progress has been made in virtualization. You can run almost every DOS and Windows (DirectX 9 or earlier) quite well (with an exception for 3Dfx games, which need quite some fidling with a wrapper library).

Likewise, services like Steam and whatever Microsoft's game manager is called are slowly making PCs resemble consoles more and more.

I don't follow that one. How is Steam something console like? Before Steam we had things like (now defunct) MPlayer. Sure, it didn't have an online store, but it did have a general place for game management and online services.

I'm mostly a PC gamer because I don't own a console (with the exception of a NDS). But I have clocked a bunch of hours of consoles through rental and friends. One of the more interesting features of consoles is the hot seat functionality a lot of games have. There aren't simply a lot of PC games with a feature like that. And it's usually not easy to manage that (unless you have (a) gamepad(s)). But with broadband internet, and VoIP functionality you can get close to hot seat functionality (i.e. having fun in games with friends like sitting next to each other)

[James]

This discussion's no fun when it's not ruining another thread.

KIDDING, there's some interesting stuff in here.

[Jayel]

My preference for PC gaming is more due to philosophical agreement with open platforms than taste in gaming.

[miffy495]

I was hardcore PC/Nintendo for the longest time. I had my N64, GCN, ect for games that I felt benefited from analog controls, and my PC for things which benefited from the mouse accuracy. Then I got a PS2, 360, and finally PS3 and I started feeling more and more that consoles were the way to go. Unless I'm playing an RTS now, I prefer to do my gaming on a console. That's not to say my PC doesn't get a work out, but there's been this distinction drawn in my mind. I think it has a good amount to do with life making me do more work on a computer. When I sit down at my computer chair, my brain prepares itself to do one of two things. Either I'll idly browse a bunch of websites, or I'll be writing a long-ass paper for school. Most of the time the latter. Basically, when I'm at a PC, my brain enters work mode. Despite having Steam and a tonne of good games to play on it (god I love Steam) it's pretty damn far from my mind when I get in front of my computer. Conversely, consoles are for nothing but play. Back in high school when my workload was far less, I played PC games far more. I didn't have the "computers are for work" mindset back then, I guess.

[LOPcagney]

I don't follow that one. How is Steam something console like? Before Steam we had things like (now defunct) MPlayer. Sure, it didn't have an online store, but it did have a general place for game management and online services.

Maybe Steam was a bad example, but the point I was trying to make was that consoles and PCs seem to be heading towards the same middleground; a platform that plays and organizes games and downloads and coordinates peer connectivity.

[Patters]

Personally I am a console guy, due to this I have only dabbled in PC games, excluding the 2 years it took me to pick up the current generation (360) which mainly involved TF2 and UT2004, among several adventures, as well as an RTS binge around the time DoW came out

With the current generation of consoles I felt that there was no need for me to pick them up till 2008 onwards, the earlier titles were weak and didn't appeal to me nearly as much as previous generations, where as I have been an early adopter of earlier generations, where they are applicable due to my age; I got the n64 about 7 months after its launch (which is quite early for a 7 year old), the gamecube I got given as a gift from my uncle on the UK launch week, other generations haven't been applicable with me being too young to get them close to launch. This isn't to say that I don't love my 360 or Wii (in the way you love an inanimate object), I just feel that the calibre of older games are better (note. not the production values).

The PC to me is suited more to some genres to me than the console is and vice versa. The PC is far more suited to MMOs, RTSes, Management games and adventures; whereas consoles are in general more suited to platformers (which hardly anyone makes good ones anymore), action games and most RPGs. FPS is one I am not going to say is better on either, due to the fact I see pluses and minuses with both, for example I can move in any direction in a console FPS opposed to having it binded to an 8 way direction, where as I am terrible at sniping on consoles due to the play in an analogue stick when compared to a good mouse.

In short I like both platforms, but prefer consoles to PCs, which is not to say that consoles are better than PCs because I do not for one second believe or support that belief.

[elmuerte]

Maybe Steam was a bad example, but the point I was trying to make was that consoles and PCs seem to be heading towards the same middleground; a platform that plays and organizes games and downloads and coordinates peer connectivity.

Did I forget that in mt lengthy post? Yes, I agree that consoles are becoming more like "limited" PCs (limited as in that you can only do different 100 things with it rather than 1 million). In fact, the PS3 and XBox360 almost have more functionality than some of the first personal computers.

whereas consoles are in general more suited to platformers (which hardly anyone makes good ones anymore), action games and most RPGs.

I'm assuming you mean jRPGs? Because I don't see any of the west-style RPGs working well on consoles.

[Patters]

I'm assuming you mean jRPGs? Because I don't see any of the west-style RPGs working well on consoles.

fable 1 and 2, KotoR 1 and 2. Many WRPGs are first person so I consider them the same way as FPS, despite a different playstyle, with older WRPGs they work better on a pc to how they would on a console such as Diablo and the first two fallouts; however people don't make games like that anymore. With current big RPG releases I see that there are more on consoles, which I cannot see working well without a controller (I really don't like using a controller on PC). These are all opinions though.

[mummifiedstalin]

I wonder how many people start out with the intention of being a "PC gamer" or a "console gamer." It seems to start less from principle than from circumstance.

I play way more PC just because it's the platform I've always had that was consistently up-to-date. But I have friends who play predominantly more console games because they simply had the money and opportunity (i.e., single with few expenses) to keep buying consoles as they became new.

Now, any time I try to come up with a genre reason to prefer PC over console, there are always exceptions that kill the example. It often seems to boil down more to "I like the mouse" or "my couch is comfier than my desk chair" which seem like pretty small reasons to self-identify and draw battle lines.

[gdf]

I started on the SNES and consoles were all I knew until last year. Got all the machines aside from PSP this gen (traded it in), but now I play more games on PC than anything else. Better framerates, more controller options, mods, the awesome indie scene, 25 years of games back compatible, and I buy so many games that the money will balance out in the long run because they're much cheaper on PC.

In the meantime, 360 and PS3 can suck my fat one. Even though I like them quite a bit, I've really come to rely on PC. Personal preference really. Plus, I don't have a proper PC desk, there's just like, a massive desk/shelf thing that spans pretty much a whole wall in my bedroom and I use this sweet chair and a footrest (another office chair with the back taken off) for playing any games, so I'm in a comfortable position regardless of the system.

[Chris]

I wonder how many people start out with the intention of being a "PC gamer" or a "console gamer." It seems to start less from principle than from circumstance.

I play way more PC just because it's the platform I've always had that was consistently up-to-date. But I have friends who play predominantly more console games because they simply had the money and opportunity (i.e., single with few expenses) to keep buying consoles as they became new.

Now, any time I try to come up with a genre reason to prefer PC over console, there are always exceptions that kill the example. It often seems to boil down more to "I like the mouse" or "my couch is comfier than my desk chair" which seem like pretty small reasons to self-identify and draw battle lines.

To me there's one important concern, as also mentioned by Jayel, that the PC is the only major gaming platform that is actually open. I don't have any problem with consoles, I own all of them and I'll play a game on any of them, but it would be extremely dangerous for the PC to not remain a viable gaming system. It is still the only meaningful place you can create and distribute a game without someone needing to approve it, to certify it, and to take a cut of the royalties. There are obviously people who will do those things for you on PC (that is, publishers), but there is no unified gatekeeper.

You can self-publish a book. You can paint a painting and sell it. You can independently fund a film. You can rent out your own studio time and record an album. But without the PC, you cannot truly independently develop a game. At the end of the day, you have to ask for somebody's permission if you want to do it legally. There is nothing anybody can do to keep you from making a PC game.

To me, that principle is tremendously important. There is a huge amount of interesting material published on the PC (much of it out of Europe--increasingly, Eastern Europe) that would have a very, very difficult time getting any kind of actual commercial release on a console while having to go through that 100% proprietary channel. Even if only a portion of that stuff personally interests me, I consider it extremely important that it exists.

Again, I don't say these things out of an opposition to consoles. I understand their importance in terms of convenience and a unified experience and an accessible format and input method. Those things are great. But they are also limiting in a way the PC, by its nature, is not.

[zomboid]

I wonder how many people start out with the intention of being a "PC gamer" or a "console gamer." It seems to start less from principle than from circumstance.

I think you nailed it right there. Both obviously have their unique merits. A sloppy, half-baked analogy I'll offer is skateboarding. You don't decide whether you're going to be goofy-footed or regular-footed before you start skating - you just do what feels right at first and take it from there. Next thing you know - you skate one way or the other. Something like that anyways.

I agree 100% with Chris about PC being essential because it is an open platform. And what's even better is that most of the insanely creative indie stuff seems to run fine on modest specs - so that furthers it's inclusiveness greatly.

And El Muerte, thanks for addressing every single point with such vigor and determination. I'm well aware of all of those points, but what may seem like no big deal to you might be a colossal inconvenience or headache to someone else. I play consoles and PC games, certain things feel better on one, and some on the other. It's my preference - I'm sorry if that's somehow "wrong" to you. Also, my 90+ hour Fallout 3 and Mass Effect saves disagree with your notion that western RPGs don't work on consoles. Yes, yes - I'll relieve you from having to point out that both of those are also on PC, and with more available user made content - but I enjoyed the living shit out of them both on consoles.

P.S. I don't think I can live in a world where I don't have a machine capable of playing Shadow of the Colossus.

[elmuerte]

fable 1 and 2, KotoR 1 and 2. Many WRPGs are first person so I consider them the same way as FPS, despite a different playstyle, with older WRPGs they work better on a pc to how they would on a console such as Diablo and the first two fallouts; however people don't make games like that anymore. With current big RPG releases I see that there are more on consoles, which I cannot see working well without a controller (I really don't like using a controller on PC). These are all opinions though.

I was actually thinking more of wRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Icewind Dale, Ultima, etc. And apparently conveniently forgot the more simplified games like Fable. And apparently Oblivion did well on consoles too (right?).

@zomboid : I wouldn't qualify Mass Effect as an RPG.

[Nachimir]

I've switched almost entirely to consoles. I can't be arsed with maintaining a gaming PC, or the expense of upgrading it every few years. I miss getting stuck into a good RTS or FPS with a mouse and keyboard, but not enough to start sinking mooney into hardware again.

STUFF

Way to fisk elmuerte

[eljay]

I wouldn't qualify Mass Effect as an RPG.

Sorry for the tangent, but care to elaborate on this? Mass Effect is full of quintessential western RPG systems (physical character design, lots of dialogue with personality choices, ally character interactions, statistical levelling up), I'd love to know what your qualifying conditions are for an RPG.

As to the actual topic, I find it frustrating that the keyboard is one of the main input devices for PC games, as it's just not very good. There's an article up on slashdot at the moment asking if new control schemes can hope to match the keyboard which I find baffling! The PCs strength in terms of input is the mouse, but the keyboard is a big clumsy jerk as far as I'm concerned, though I do of course acknowledge that it would be nigh impossible to implement something else successfully :\

[toblix]

A good while back, when I was more of a retard than I am today, I was a PC gamer and hated/disliked consoles because:

• They made gaming more mainstream
  
• They made gaming more accessible
  
• I didn't have one
  

Of course, these were not my arguments when declaring how much consoles sucked. They were such points as:

• They have worse resolution than PC games (still a valid point, but now, as then, more of an observation than a valid point of criticism)
  
• You can only use them for gaming (not for SPREADSHEETS and WORD PROCESSING)
  
• The games are so expensive compared to PC games (may still be valid, I don't know. Back then, anyway, they could be as much as 50% expensiver than PC games)
  
• Console controllers are only good for fighting games. The combination of the PC mouse and the keyboard is the ultimate controller!!!
  

Ever since reluctantly getting my first console (the Xbox) I've come to appreciate how vastly superior console controllers are to the standard PC setup for most games.

Anyway, I got distracted at work and I don't know why I'm writing this anymore. Something about PC controls vs console controls? I guess that can be summarised thusly:

Standard console controls are best for games where button positioning is crucial, and where multiple analogue dimensions are useful, and where relative precision (acceleration) is sufficient:

• Fighting games
  
• Third person games
  
• Platform games
  
• Whatever
  

Mouse & keyboard is best for games where you need tons of fucking buttons and absolute precision (position) is important:

• Flight sims
  
• RTS games
  
• Point & click games
  
• Text games
  

What useless fucking list. Also, you can use console controllers on PC and keyboard & mouse on consoles and the Wii now has absolute positioning ah fuck it.

[gdf]

I was thinking about that the other day, eljay. I came up with a kind of keyboard/controller hybrid. It's a lump of ergonomically designed plastic that still sits on a desk, and you still put your hand on top of it, but it's obviously convenient to use. Buttons are laid out like the PC, so there's still Ctrl and Shift, ERFG etc., but WASD is laid out in a nice way with softer keys, and you can rock the unit side-to-side to lean. Sort of in the shape of a mouse, but a bit bigger and with more buttons.

Hard to explain, and I don't have any artistic talent so I can't draw it.

[elmuerte]

Sorry for the tangent, but care to elaborate on this? Mass Effect is full of quintessential western RPG systems (physical character design, lots of dialogue with personality choices, ally character interactions, statistical levelling up), I'd love to know what your qualifying conditions are for an RPG.

For western RPG systems I expect to have say on how the character develops. And I didn't get that feeling at all in Mass Effect, I got the feeling that who my characters would be was already set in stone. Mass Effect had just as much character development as, for example, the Jedi Knight games had. Mass Effect felt more like an action/adventure game.

Or, maybe BioWare did such a good job that the RPG stuff was so streamlined that it felt like predetermined by the way I played it.

As to the actual topic, I find it frustrating that the keyboard is one of the main input devices for PC games, as it's just not very good. There's an article up on slashdot at the moment asking if new control schemes can hope to match the keyboard which I find baffling! The PCs strength in terms of input is the mouse, but the keyboard is a big clumsy jerk as far as I'm concerned, though I do of course acknowledge that it would be nigh impossible to implement something else successfully :\

Isn't the same thing true for consoles in general? i.e. the input device that is shipped with the system is the main input device. What I do find more troubling these days is that more and more game explicitly breaking gamepad support by hardwiring it to the xbox360 gamepad (which doesn't conform to the existing gamepad/joystick signals). I don't recall which game I wanted to play with my gamepad but couldn't get it to work because the game only accepted the xbox360 gamepad inputs. I could assign buttons and all, but the D-pad or analog sticks were simply ignored, because the xbox360 controller does that differently.

An other shame was the dropping of proper steering wheel and paddles support in race games. The last racing game I tried to play just would play nice with my steering wheel, I couldn't tune it at all (I think it was Need for speed most wanted). And the problem with steering wheels and paddles is that tuning the input is quite vital.

Hard to explain, and I don't have any artistic talent so I can't draw it.

You mean this:

http://static.mmoabc.com/www/web/2007/11/21/1195629674764.jpg

[Jake]

As to the actual topic, I find it frustrating that the keyboard is one of the main input devices for PC games, as it's just not very good. There's an article up on slashdot at the moment asking if new control schemes can hope to match the keyboard which I find baffling! The PCs strength in terms of input is the mouse, but the keyboard is a big clumsy jerk as far as I'm concerned, though I do of course acknowledge that it would be nigh impossible to implement something else successfully :\

I think just the fact that there are sooo many buttons, and that most touch-typists can home in on them pretty quick, is the only think keyboards have going for them which other game controllers don't, and for some genres and some games, that's a reasonably important thing. RTS games, flight sim games (or even Wing Commander), or more management- or mode-switch-centric FPSs like System Shock of Deus Ex, benefit from the fact that there is a huge cluster of buttons at your disposal, and when teamed up with the precision of the mouse, you end up with one of the reasons PC games are their own thing.

I'm not saying that general streamlining of UI should be avoided, but there are some games which benefit strongly from their interface being "flat" -- all accessible from the top level, instead of buried in tiers -- and a keyboard combined with some learning time is better for that just by virtue of how much of it there is. Someone on Slashdot surely appreciates this more than the rest of the world (probably too much more), as I imagine Slashdot users operate their computer in a more flat, less hierarchical way than most gamers (eg a Slashdot user probably knows all the hotkeys instead of burrowing through a two or three tiered menu, or likes to think they do).

It's not a style that is appropriate for most games, but I think it totally has its place even if its a big jerk.

bleh this post of mine

[zomboid]

Not being a touch typist - this is a barrier of entry for me. That said, I don't really gravitate towards the "spectrum of input" type games like RTS or simulators, but just I can't get the hang of WASD. I remember being a kid with an Atari 2600 and thinking there was NO FUCKING WAY I was ever going to get the hang of a d-pad after using that joystick for so long, but I eventually did, and I reckon WASD is analogous to that.

What I crave though is a Wii-style nunchuck analog input + mouse for PC games. That would rule.