Do you guys think the pc is better than xbox 360?

There are stupid people playing games on all platforms. Its just that console gamers tend to be more stupid on average (thinking of frat boys who play Halo all day)

Also, we're talking about the mouse + keyboard being superior in FPS games. There is autoaiming in all console shooters which is why you don't notice the difference as much.

 

Working with computer is much more satisfying and more complex. Both make you more intelligent.

Even graphics are bad on xbox. Maybe it is fine for little kids who dont know how to install a game to a PC.

 

All I would say to these people is come play Cod4 online against Pc user's and use your gamepad, you will get fragged badly! Or any other Fps for that matter. And just for context I have owned every major game's console for the last 10 years (as have many Pc gamer's) and I have enjoyed many of them. I have found all of them though to be hugely inferior to Pc gaming in almost every way. Also I do find console gamer's to be much dumber, just listen to some online chat in console game's and compare it to a Pc game!

 

Talk about elitism, all your trying to say is that your better than console gamers. What you mean is you fail at using a controller/too lazy to adjust

 

I believe a mouse is just naturally better than a controller in first person shooters. With controllers, you need to made sacrifices such as auto-aiming, or targets moving slower. I haven't played Gears of War yet but my brother told me in the PC version if you use the 360 controller rather than keyboard/mouse, the game becomes a bit easier to compensate.

An analog stick doesn't have the same responsiveness as a mouse, at least not yet. Your hand moving a mouse is nearly as fast as your hand moving a gun in your hand.

 

There are people tweaking PCs and modding game consoles...I wouldn't say either community is more intelligent than the other. The console modders have done some fairly incredible stuff with both their hardware and the consoles' operating systems.

The 'intellect' of games isn't a limitation of the hardware available...it's a limitation of the demographic who will yield the most money to a publisher for a game...

Sadly, in my opinion, the 'dumbing' down of games has occurred on the PC too, to boost sales...wargames requiring a plan that carried you through more than the next turn (ala Chess), complex flight and space sims, detail-oriented RPGs (remember having to eat in Ultima 4 and mix spell reagents?...perhaps that went too far) and thoughtful adventure games used to rule the PC landscape...now they are few and far between...even Fallout 3 feels more like an FPS than an RPG...because FPS games, with all their eye candy, will sell better...it's a good game, but I don't feel that it has the depth of its predecessors...

You could make console games intelligent...you could make PC games intelligent...but who would buy them? I don't even think I care anymore (still haven't bought DCS: BlackShark and I'm very scared of the time that it would take to learn to get the helo off the ground)...just let me twitch...but I don't twitch as fast as the average gamer out there anymore...

And twitching with a mouse and keyboard does feel more natural to me...I got severely embarrassed yesteday on BF:1943 on XBox Live...so this retarded monkey, due to severe coordination issues with my opposable thumbs, prefers mouse and keyboard (I could see that d*mn sniper, but I couldn't make my thumbs move precisely enough)...

But I still think this thread has gone far afield from what was intended...

PC hardware is better (and more expensive) than 360 hardware...the 360 CPU may still be competitive with the best mobile CPUs...but the 360 GPU is way outdated...

 

Im not saying I'm better than anyone. Im saying im smart enough to know that a controller is 1/100th of what a mouse + keyboard are for an FPS. If you want to play an fps with a controller, so be it.

 

Speak for your self I just think Iam better than everyone! Lol.
But in all seriousness I think this thread has gone as far as it can really (without some sort of Xbox gamer's vs Pc gamer's battle to the death).

 

QFT.

Now we need a 'Do you think the PC is better than Mac?' thread.

Maybe followed by a 'Do you think a Frontal Lobotomy is better than PS3?' thread. (Oops! Did I just type that out loud???)


*

* = note the smilie. Please read this with a sense of humour.

 

I'm not arguing that a controller is better than a M+K, far from it, but...

In PC gaming, your hardware takes priority over your skill, so if you spend lump of cash on the best stuff you may pwn but its not due to your skill but the responsiveness and reliability of your hardware. Fair gaming is on the consoles side where skill is the main advantage as everyone has equal hardware

P.S. I love arguing.

 

So now we are insulting.We were all keeping it civilized here.Now you are calling me a moron.FYI, just add a GB of RAM, and Pentium 4 is enough.Believe or not a$$hole, there hasn't been *that* much advance in technology between the Core i7 and Pentium.

 

It is not the most fair comparison since that desktop is older than the current console generation, it is from the previous console generation of the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube. An AGP 4x card should still be able to play games from that generation.

PCs since 2005 (since this current generation started) have PCI-Express slots which can take modern cards and be able to play games from this generation.

 

Thank you, Rabul.Couldn't have said better my self.

 

A person can use a PC to make money. No one can say the same about a gaming platform like a Xbox, right? Comparing a PC with a Xbox is like comparing potatoes and lemons.

 

True.

Not true, I've seen lots of people making money out of fixing up rubbish RROD Xboxes and also selling accounts with high gamer scores.

 

I think he meant that you can use a PC for use in business matters like using it to starta business at home make your own money.You can't do that in a console.

 

They both have different circumstances in which to buy them. If your on a budget and want to game there is no other way to go, for $300 you can play most games and will not have to worry about upgrading, etc. But a console is not "better" in terms of game play, keyboard and mouse is better, graphics, and multimedia.

A computer can do much more, faster, but is more expensive obviously. I dont think I needed to explain this over because its been gone over countless times but there are different circumstances for purchasing each object.

I own a console and I myself find it a LOT easier to connect with friends to play games, like COD, and others, but, im not really in any PC gaming communities, but I have played World at War on both PS3 and PC and I enjoy the online so much more on the PC, I love the larger games, more people makes so much more sense on the some of the maps like Airfield and Seelow. I cant even imagine how I played 6 on 6 on the PS3, it was pretty boring.

Anyways if you can have both, great, but a PC is a better all-arounder and a console is good for budget gaming.

 

My point exactly. I have yet to see someone who uses a console for work related stuff such as AutoCAD, 3ds max, programming, etc.

 

Really? Did you really just say there's no significant advance in tech between a Pentium 4 and an i7? The i7/i5 have ondie memory controllers. That right there makes it significantly different from a Pentium 4. There is no P4 in history that's similar to an i7.

And FYI, even with 4gb ram, a P4 Willamette @ 2.6 is a dog-slow POS CPU.

I really also wouldn't consider this thread to be very "civilized" considering the way everybody is bashing consoles.

He said "plain old Dell desktop", he didn't specify it had to to be a 2005+ machine with a PCI-Express slot.

You can install Linux on Fat PS3's. From there the possibilities for programs are endless.

 

Well sorry for the misunderstanding, I was thinking of something more recent, like for someone who bought a desktop a few years back but everyone knows that pre-built regualr desktops always come with a sucky video card.For example, my cousin's old 2 year old HP desktop had a sucky G-Force 6150.(I think).Easily was able to slip a 4850 in there(I think he had to upgrade his power supply, but I dont remember).My friend easily updated is even older desktop from his old OC'ed 7900 GT to 9800 GT.The problem is that gamers think they need more power than they need.Half the time unless you're a benchmark junkie, there is no reason to go up the GTX 2xx series, or the 4870/4890.For a cheaper price you can get 2 budget cards liek a 4850, 4770, or 9800 GT and these in SLI and you can rape those high end cards anyway.

Personal I don't see why anyone make a thread like this anyway, the topic was pretty much asking for a flame war.

 

Look on the bright side guys, atleast your pc's have gpus,

My desktop currently is an amd duron 1.2ghz processor, 512mb ram and no gpu, just a silicon integrated system

I play homeworld

I've had my xbox for 3-4 years now happily without rrod (what have i done?)
And i used to have a sony vaio which could happily chug along with source games but that was about it,

Undeniably i loved the 360's live play for games, and especially how easy it is to party up with some mates and spend a night on cod 4.

Pc's have been ok for me, alot of connection problems and ports are alot of hastle (even closed ports on the 360 did me proud) and hosting games was great, if i'd host a game on a pc it'd lag with my 44kb upload, but on the xbox, flawless.

I used to be pretty much full time gaming but as i've lost the ability to be playing all the time (very busy days) i've slipped back into pc again for just the one off games, although i definitely would go back to the 360 if i got time, the controller was my favourite .

Time came when i got cod5 for the lappy actually, it was one of the best games i had actually played, (except now i find myself unable to play it online for some reason) but all i can say is,

Zombies and console for the win,

Xbox + mediocre internet (if that) = win for some serious stable gaming. (i was playing on 1meg fluently so..doesnt get much better then that right?)
Computer + personality? (i dont know) for everything really, pcs can do it all and will hopefully only get better!

 

catacylsm, even your laptop could rape those consoles.Considering that consoles play on very low resolutions, imagine what benchmarks you'll be getting on that 4850 playing CoD4 at resolutions consoles are playing on.You even have a blu-ray drive and a 250GB HDD.So you even outclass the PS3.I just dont SEE how someone with a laptop like that would choose a 360.

 

Not quite, the PS3 is still very limited in hardware specs, at least in RAM, where only 256 megabytes of RAM is available to operating systems.

Well by the specifications you told me of your relative's desktop, it is definitely from before 2004 before the PCI Express standard came about. That desktop is from the previous generation of consoles, when the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox were out. If an Xbox user wants to play current games, he has no choice but to purchase an Xbox 360. If your relative wishes to play new PC games, he will have to purchase a new computer but can upgrade the GPU or other components if necessary.

 

This thread makes me laugh out loud.

 

Agreed.:laugh:

But what did you expect from thread with a topic like this?

 

This kind of thread belongs on a different forum, preferably a pure gaming forum with equal representation (or at least close) from all parties. But since it's here, we may as well enjoy the show.

 

Hehe, very true my friend, however i believe its solely down to 1 thing.

The online play, purely the stability of it on an xbox is something that i wouldn't want to live without.

Altho i have had my internet upgraded recently so i'll hopefully get some good online gaming in and pray that cod 5 decides to work.

 

I vote PC, if all you want to do is game then consoles are the way to go as they are better value for the graphics power (in general, I'm sure I could scrape together something which would beat it). The thing about consoles though is that all they can do is play games (don't anyone say "but.... but.... you can go on the internet!", yes in theory you can but it takes a fricken age to do anything and is just crap in general). PC's can do so much more.

Also PC's are leagues ahead of consoles in terms of power now for top end machines. I know crysis is very poorly written but it's about the best looking game out there, compare that to anything either the ps3 or the 360 has and it beats them by miles. So if you happen to be a console fangirl who goes around saying that PC's have worse graphics, although in general this may be true this is because most people don't have gaming PC's, just go look at some facts and then try to blag your way through saying consoles still win the power war, put your brain to something useful and argue about either the 360 or ps3 being better than each other because at least those are essentially the same power and the games look the same. I know I'm kinda flaming here but it had to be said

 

But there's hardly a social aspect to PC gaming, sure you have the nerdy ways of communicating but there's nothing better than going round or inviting people over to play on a console, even better when your slightly pissed (think Wii Sports)

 

I can agree with you on this. It's a very stupid topic.

BTW: ZZF has 4890 1gb cards for ~195 USD.

 

Well the whole reson is to find why each side thinks they are better. since this is a pc based website i figured i'd get your opinions. i'm gonna post a thread on an xbox forum that is why you think the 360 is better. now if i posted a thread on this website that was why do you think the 360 is better than it would have been trying to start a flame war. just trying to hear each side's comments and opinions.

 

I agree with you. In addition I think some of the responses were well thought. I think there is no reason to disregard this thread as bad.

 

Also saying the pc is more expensive then the 360 is true but don't think $300 dollars will get you a gaming machine for a couple of years since their failure rate is about 62% and spending $100 dollars they charge to fix it and waiting a month to get it back will most likely happen more then once.

Now people will say "well my 360 never broke" well thats why the failure rate isn't 100% because some systems will work, but after sending my 360 back 3 times and my friends all having to send theirs back at least once and we all had to wait at least 3 weeks it is not a very good investment.

 

LAN party anyone? Though you do have a point you cant really invite friends to play on the one pc.

 

yes

This should have just been a poll.

 

yes

xbox/console = gimped, over-priced, PC
it's been done before, and evidenced by searches on newegg, ebay, etc: there are saved shopping carts with components equal to or better than the xbox that all are in the same neighbourhood of cost and can equip a seriously better gaming rig than any console, let alone considering *real* PC parts.

it's what happens when you have a free market of hardware vendors and not a monopoly of sheeple (i.e. M$soft.)

Bottom-line consoles are comprised of inferior old-gen technology sold over-priced (but still at a loss, since publishing fees, bs bureaucracy, etc) to users who lack the tech-savvy and who are continually milked there-on after by over-priced games and "online subscriptions" on top of what they already pay for internet access, all while still humming to the tune of "oh well my <insert console here> is better for gaming and was cheaper than your PC". .. oh, the twisted ironies we weave.

I can't believe this thread even exists.

 

This whole paragraph is disturbingly narrow-minded. It's not just the Tech-Tards who play consoles... it's just a much friendlier interface for everyone. Not everyone has to be able to assemble a computer to enjoy gaming, and I'm pretty sure that's what it's all about... fun. Ever tried playing Madden on a PC? Now, ever tried to invite a few friends over to play Madden on the PC? How about NBA, or any other sports titles for that matter. How about racing? How many friends do you invite over to catch a few laps on your LAN setup? Exactly. What it sounds like to me is a little God-Syndrome from some of the PC-geeks around here. I love computers, and can work circles around them everyday, but I still own a 360.

So before you respond back with more PC banter, just think about how many different styles of games, and gamers, there are in the world. Now, should all of them be required to be technologically astute? You get real.

 

I suppose it was my fault for baiting you into a fallacious assumption, but I couldn't resist exploiting the naivety inherent in just about every console fanboy. You'll want to note that no where do I say that consoles are only for the tech-unaware.

Even the computer jockey with a beowulf cluster in his basement can appreciate the ease in which 4 wireless controllers + TV + console = fun. But that doesn't change one iota that all the things I listed in that paragraph are true.
You truly are naive if you cannot see that consoles are pitched to the "average Joe" non-techie, taking advantage of their lack of prowess.

 

Yes.

• Cheaper games
• Does more
• Better graphics (AA, hires textures)

Only console(s) I would own right now are Wii and PS3. Wii because it is a good party game console and the wife likes it. PS3 because PS3 exclusives are usually pretty good (not just repackaged titles of a multiplatform franchise) and it plays Blu-Rays.

 

I own multiple PCs... a gaming laptop, AND a PS3...

The PS3 is pretty much for the "party games" and the PC will always be for the real gaming.

There is nothing wrong with some friends, a few beers or a bottle of jack and Madden or NHL2009 (soon 2010) or Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat around the TV.

Anything requiring real control or with real depth you play on a PC... anything else is cheating yourself IMHO.

 

I vote for PC is the best for games

I still have my XBOX360 to play Madden and other sports games with my friends drinking and partying

 

Im gonna settle this whole mess..PC is 100000X than xbox for these reasons..
-ambient occlusion
-High res textures
-Anti Aliasing
-directx 10 soon to be 11
-alot of vram and Gddr3
-pcs have lots of ram and hdd space dont forget high specs
-the dont forget...SLI And Crossfire on ATI

 

Most of the posts and "reasons" posted here are totally random and the poster seems to have no clue about consoles.

Like, a good example is the poster above me.
Just posting some random words he knows what are related to computers and using them as reasons why PC is better. It's like when comparing appes to oranges, then the above posted just described apple seed structure, but didn't compare anything.

And yup, what kind of a response did OP think he's going to get in a laptop forum / under gaming section. Seriously. This is like asking if "x" is better than "y" in "x"-themed community.

 

"Bottom-line consoles are comprised of inferior old-gen technology sold over-priced (but still at a loss, since publishing fees, bs bureaucracy, etc) to users who lack the tech-savvy"

You're right... what a ridiculous assumption. Listen, maybe with some life experience you'll realize not everything has to be a competition. Sure it aims at the average demographic, but how exactly is that wrong? Are they not allowed to have fun? So we should treat them like slobber-mongers because they didn't spend 60% of their life reading Tech mags and interweb articles. And my post had nothing to do with nativity. It's simple realism- there's a reason we have chocolate and vanilla.

But you know what, you're right. 360's will keep marketing to the "average Joe", as you put it, while the PC continues to market to hermits, techno-beavers, and virgins.

But honestly, who cares? I'm actually embarrassed I'm in one of these internet squabbles. I'm out of this thread.

 

Definitely prefer Xbox 360. I love PC Games but much rather prefer ergonomic feel of controller than a mouse and keyboard. Pc Games wins for RTS though and the occasional FPS. But 360 owns for FPS and most others genres.

 

Your right i just wanted to add to the flaming i have a ps3.

 

Yet that doesn't mean (as you assume) that every reason given is wrong. Definitely the amount of answers will be biased towards the theme of the community (laptop in this case), I do not deny the fact, but that doesn't equate that the answers given are intrinsically wrong due to the bias itself.

 

Blue-ray's a joke. I don't see any use in even getting a blue-ray player. Unless you have 7.1 Surround sound dolby digital with a 50" TV (the one with the mirrors from TI) you don't need blue-ray plus the 360 will upscale normal dvds to hd standards. So no use. They don't even use it right. ST:TOS on 5 dvds? crazy as hell.

Also 360/laptop is about the same. Main reason is my 360's never broke on me and i can always play on it. Laptop on the other hand....

 

You are the joke here. Blu-ray is very successful worldwide. And I mean very successful.
Just because you don't have a HDTV doesn't mean the others don't, the difference between a upscaled DVD and Blu-ray is like day and night. ((Just FYI the PS3 can upscale DVD's aswell also apply other effects.))

 

The above is not technically correct in any way.

A DVD upconverted to 1080p is not the same as a Blu-Ray that is originally formatted for 1080p. Even with the best upconversion available, its still guessing instead of knowing. Note the 360's upconvert is serviceable, but nowhere near the best available.

The size of the TV is relative to the distance it is viewed at. Frankly, even a 40" TV will show the weakness of the 360's upconvert to 1080p on a reasonable chunk of DVDs at a reasonable distance.

The sound quality on a Blu-Ray is superior to DVD even if you don't have 7.1 because in most cases the sound written to the Blu-Ray is closer to the original sound than anything they can fit on a DVD.
It doesn't matter how good the equipment after is if the the original sample is lesser. If the original sample is superior, then it gives better equipment a better chance to reproduce the sound. Even if you cannot decode 7.1, you still get 5.1 of lossless audio provided your equipment can reproduce it.

Granted, if your ears and discernment are horrid than I guess it doesn't matter either...

While I agree Blu-Ray is expensive, it DOES produce better images and sounds than DVD(even upconverted) by a reasonable margin.

The PS3 IS a serviceable Blu-ray player in this day and age... (its a little loud, but it does the job) the 360 is a last-resort DVD player as even el-cheapo up-convert DVD players do better than the 360 at this point.

The 360's outdated and unreliable (red ring of death ftw!) hardware is hurting it at this point.