The_Speedstah's forum posts

  • 15 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -

I do not mean to start a flame war, I apologize if it ends up being that way.  But this is just a personal blog, (posted to general discussion forum as well) expressing my views of PC gaming, etc.

#2 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@raddevon: Well it's a matter of opinion.  Based on my own personal observations: I've seen servers (whether extremely secure, or quite faulty) crash more often than my gaming consoles/PC.
#3 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@raddevon said:
" @The_Speedstah: Back to cloud-based gaming: I don't necessarily think it will be a thundering success in the short-term, but I do think this is the inevitable next step for PC gaming. This will remove the hardware barrier. It's hard to sell someone who just wants to play a game on going out to buy a $100+ video card, cracking open their case, and putting it in. This would tear down that barrier. PC gaming needs that desperately. "
Perhaps I misheard, but isn't Cloud-based gaming reliant upon internet servers?  That sounds incredibly vulnerable to me, it could all go bad if they crash.
#4 Edited by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@raddevon: Great point.  Although Modern Warfare 2 has been priced at $60 for PC (rather controversially, might I add), I do hope that is not the future of pricing for the PC.
 
Cloud-based gaming does seem promising, but for some reason I don't see it being successful, it seems very vulnerable... I don't know, just my two cents.
#5 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@Farmer: Your points are good.  No, you don't have to upgrade, and indeed you can't with consoles, but the point still remains that if you do want to keep your PC updated, it'd be quite costly.
 
But in a nutshell, when it's boiled down, it's complexity vs. simplicity.
#6 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@Farmer: Yes, surely it's the best value, but here I'm talking strictly about gaming.  I will agree with that.  But as mentioned before, the requirement to consistently stay up with the best could be extremely expensive.
#7 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@jukezypoo: Indeed, thou art forgiven.
#8 Posted by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@jukezypoo: I mention mods. :P
#9 Edited by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -
@Farmer: Note that I said PC gaming, not the entire PC.  "Multi-purpose workstation" is nice, but unrelated to gaming.
 
Yes, it may truly be minor in the long run, but if one wishes to keep it consistently up to date, I would be shocked if it still is.
 
It boils down to preference, though.  None is better than the other.
#10 Edited by The_Speedstah (18 posts) -

Ahhhh PC gaming.  I guess you could say it's the oldest of the bunch, although I think 'The Brown Box' (which was later turned into Magnavox Odyssey) is.  Whatever, not the point, today I'm going to express my opinion on PC gaming because I'm quite bored.
 
First off, I was a console gamer from pretty much age 4, PC gamer at around... well, age 12 or something.  So yeah, you can accuse me of being biased but I'm going to attempt to be as unbiased about my opinion as I possibly can (it's technically impossible to be completely unbiased, but one can still be 99% unbiased :D).
 
So PC gaming, yeah, it's popular.  Journalists and other people have speculated it to be a dying breed, but it still lives on.
 
I'll say it right now, I'm not a super big fan of PC gaming, for one big reason, and maybe a smaller one.
 
Big reason first: THE COST.  PC gaming is by far the most expensive nowadays.  Yeah, you can buy a high-end PC and use it for a few years fine, just have a slow progression of having to set the graphics lower... and lower... til the game is so slow it's practically unplayable.  Then, of course, you upgrade, which includes two options: buy/build a new PC, or upgrade your current hardware inside your current PC.  Both cost.  No matter how efficiently you do it, the price racks up.  Upgrading is cheaper, but I'd be surprised if one could upgrade to the latest hardware, spending anything under $150 (playing it safe here, but I would've said $200-$300).  Even if one upgrade doesn't stack up to the price of a gaming console, the amount of times you'll upgrade within any of the consoles' lifespan would definitely make the price higher than the gaming console.  PC gets free online too, yeah, unlike the Xbox 360 ('M$' is right!) but is it really worth it if you're on a budget?  In my opinion, no, I'd get a PS3 for that.  You see, it's all the little things you may need to buy that makes PC gaming so (possibly) expensive.
 
I will point out, however, that console gaming does have a few disadvantages.  For one, the graphics might be of a lesser level than the PC version of a game, or a PC exclusive for that matter.  Second, you don't get a mouse and keyboard, which many shooter players must admit is the best option for accuracy.  Third would be the community, games may get old but on PC, if the game is popular, you will be able to find some pretty sweet modifications of the game, such as 'Project Reality' for Battlefield 2 for example.  On top of that, it's more social, although Xbox LIVE and PSN do an admirable job - PC still is just, well, more social I guess, with clans just plain dominating the majority of online PC games (there are tons of clans for consoles too, but nothing compared to PC).
 
However, a smaller point as to why I prefer console gaming over PC is local multiplayer.  While some PC games have some sort of local multiplayer (this is excluding LAN), I don't ever recall a PC game having any kind of split-screen multiplayer.  I talked about split-screen before in my last blog, which was a while ago, so I do have a certain liking for it.  But the lack of it on PC games was an unfortunate inevitability and is at least 98% the case.  When there is a local multiplayer mode, it's usually turn-based.  Which works fine, but there's nothing like playing with friends, in real time, in the same room.  Of course this is obviously a preference of mine, but it is a reason.
 
I could list some more, such as how much I dislike the problems I've often had with games (or programs, in general), but that would be based off of personal experience and not facts (of course, this still included some opinions, but still).
 
So basically, this is how I think: PC gaming is for the people who are not afraid to spend their hard-earned cash on the thing quite often, spending time setting stuff up, and don't mind having an unfortunate lack of local multiplayer, while having the best graphics.  Whilst console gaming is for those whom want to spend money on the thing once and be set (excluding possible online fees, a la Xbox LIVE), have local multiplayer and just plain want to get to the game, no need to tweak settings or anything, and don't mind having lesser graphics.
 
Although in a nutshell it's simplicity vs. complexity, and I'm sure I missed a ton of points on both sides, AND this blog is probably still biased toward console gaming... thanks for reading anyway.

  • 15 results
  • 1
  • 2