Having second thoughts.....

B

Benton The Race

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
287
Okay, I love PC gaming, I really do, but I have been thinking lately. To get a top of the line PC, I am going to be spending $1,200. Right now I have $500. So here is the dilema, I just got back from best buy to play xbox 360 and was honestly stunned. The graphics were just as good as a PC! And, the thing was only $300! Now why in the hell should I play 1,200 for the same graphics out of a $300 machine. Also, all the games I wanted to play on PC are going to be out on 360 such as Doom3 and quake4. So here is the choice, and I need your guys help.

Should I buy the 360, some games, and a really nice TV.

Or should I buy a PC?
 
because in two years you can put a new graphics card in your PC to handle next-next gen games, and the 360 will have two year old tech.
 
How nice a tv? $1200 alone wouldn't cover a nice tv in my book, but to each his own. Right now it's a toss up as console's are maturing up to pc standards. Check what games are coming out within the next 6 months that you want and which platform they are coming out on. If you go console, will you pc still be able to handle the occasional new pc game? Maybe divide the money for both a console+games and upgrade to a mid-level pc? My two cents. Good luck with your decision.
 
denaps said:
because in two years you can put a new graphics card in your PC to handle next-next gen games, and the 360 will have two year old tech.
Click to expand...

Unfortuneatly it's not just the videocard that runs a game good.
 
It all depends.........

The x360 will be best played on a HDTV. Most of the better HDTVs run for above $1000. I think there is a Samsung 30" that can be had for $800 but dont quote me on it. Also, the x360 is $299 for the standard (no hard drive, no HDTV cable, etc) while the premium goes for $399. Add on 2 more games and the thing is going to cost ya upwards of $500.

A nice PC on the other hand will be able to play some of the better games out now (Doom3, HL2, FEAR, BF2, etc etc). Those can keep ya occupied for a couple days or so ;) By the time your done with those games the price of the x360 may have fallen to compete with the PS3 and then you'll have another set of choices to make.

My opinion: go with both! :p
 
I get where you're coming from, and logic can be such a pain in the ass. But, do you play your current consoles still? Or do they sit on the TV cabinet collecting dust?

It may seem like a really good buy, but hell, it aint worth it if you don't play the thing.

Personally, given the choice, I'd upgrade the PC. You'll notice a lot of your every day computing uses going more smoothly as well. But I really think it comes down to where you spend most of your time.
 
When you look at getting the Xbox 360, a good HDTV, and a 5.1 sytem, you'll be looking at way over 1,200.
 
denaps said:
because in two years you can put a new graphics card in your PC to handle next-next gen games, and the 360 will have two year old tech.
Click to expand...

I really don't agree with your reasoning here.

Really, there aint a lot of people with dual-core CPU's right now, Xbox is going to the mass public, with three cores. When a majority of the public get computers with dual cores, X360 is going to be fairly matured, and only the amount of people now that have dual-core will have 3-4 cores (there's always the select few with more. Sir Frag. has got, what, 4 CPUs right now. But, only a small percentage has systems such as those).

So, really, when Intel/AMD release a 3 core CPU which is widely available (this would, by default, assume people in the future have a fair bit more knowledge about PC's than they do now, or Dell/otherOEM starts putting them in their budget PC's...), for a good price, you'll be one standing in the corner spouting "It's a new tech! Awesome." when in reality, it's been around since the Xbox 360.

Sort of went off on a tangent there... -.-

/wonders if it makes sense
 
i don't have that problem.. because the main reason i game on the PC.. is to give me an excuse to open my case up and add something.. gives me an excuse to over clock.. etc..

PC gaming is my excuse to upgrade.. because i enjoy opening up my computer.. lol.. so i will enver have that problem..

anyway in terms of consoles.. i'm gonna go with the revolution at launch.. and just sit on the side lines before i get a 360 or PS3
 
the thing with consoles is that the games are much more expensive. So unless you plan to pirate it doesn´t get much cheaper in the long run...

Personally only the Revolution really seem interesting for me. Playing with gamepads and such is so crappy.
 
Carv said:
When you look at getting the Xbox 360, a good HDTV, and a 5.1 sytem, you'll be looking at way over 1,200.
Click to expand...

unless you plan on using an existing LCD or CRT monitor.
 
i have a pre-order on a premuim xbox 360 , a wireless controller and vga cable and a plug and play kit and condemed...i am thinking of selling it on ebay i have seen core systems going for premuim prices or more!. I think i can get at least 800 for it maybe more. If i do then i will use the money to build a new pc.
 
alkoholik said:
that isnt a widescreen tv is it? (doesnt look like one from the pic)
Click to expand...

It's the standard 4:3. In widescreen it's about 29 inches viewable. Circuit City has a 30" wide for a similar price atm. So you'd gain 1 inch on widescreen stuff but lose 2 on all your 4:3 stuff. Sort of a toss up imo.
 
I think I am gonna go with the PC beacause I enjoy modding etc. Also, its upgradable and can do a lot more than an xbox.
 
Benton The Race said:
I think I am gonna go with the PC beacause I enjoy modding etc. Also, its upgradable and can do a lot more than an xbox.
Click to expand...

And there's your answer right there. I know PC gaming can be expensive but PC modding is my hobby and I have a lot of fun tweaking that sucker. :)
 
There is no way I would even consider getting an Xbox, instead of a PC. Just look at all the game mods that are out there. Here's just one example, 78 Unreal mods. Think about how much better Battlefield 1942 is because of all the mods for it. And if you like RPGs, look at all the content that's been created for Neverwinter Nights. One popular mod friendly PC game will give you 50 times the content you can get with a console game.
 
denaps said:
because in two years you can put a new graphics card in your PC to handle next-next gen games, and the 360 will have two year old tech.
Click to expand...

Awesome! So he can spend another $500 to play Quake 5 (Basically Quake 2 with a new graphics engine) in a few years? That's great!

/sarcasm

Stop wasting money on upgrading your PC. Buy into a console and see what developers can do when they actually have standardized hardware to work with. You'll eventually see that the e-Peen contest is ridiculous. People are spending hundreds of dollar for nothing more than rehashes with better graphics engines and more compatibility problems. Hardware doesn't make a good game.

Mods? What mods? I remember hearing about Half-Life 2 revolutionizing the modding industry. What do we have a year after it's release? One mainstream mod that lets you dick around with random objects and physics. Custom content is becoming a standard in the console market as well.
 
BladeVenom said:
There is no way I would even consider getting an Xbox, instead of a PC. Just look at all the game mods that are out there. Here's just one example, 78 Unreal mods. Think about how much better Battlefield 1942 is because of all the mods for it. And if you like RPGs, look at all the content that's been created for Neverwinter Nights. One popular mod friendly PC game will give you 50 times the content you can get with a console game.
Click to expand...

No kidding! I wouldn't have even purchased BF1942 if it wasn't for DC. I played that mod for like 2 years straight.
 
Benton The Race said:
Okay, I love PC gaming, I really do, but I have been thinking lately. To get a top of the line PC, I am going to be spending $1,200. Right now I have $500. So here is the dilema, I just got back from best buy to play xbox 360 and was honestly stunned. The graphics were just as good as a PC! And, the thing was only $300! Now why in the hell should I play 1,200 for the same graphics out of a $300 machine. Also, all the games I wanted to play on PC are going to be out on 360 such as Doom3 and quake4. So here is the choice, and I need your guys help.

Should I buy the 360, some games, and a really nice TV.

Or should I buy a PC?
Click to expand...

Get a 360 now. Save your money until Vista comes out, then upgrade PC.
 
DarkSeraphim said:
People are spending hundreds of dollar for nothing more than rehashes with better graphics engines
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the console market was any different in this aspect.
 
It isn't, for the most part. Read the "Warren Spector" post.
 
I thought X360 required an HDCP TV, since MS got bought by those crazy fucking MPAA lawyers?
 
I know that.

He says to not upgrade the PC because the ePeen contest is stupid, and that the games are only rehashes.

But he also says to buy into the console market, which does the exact same fucking thing.

Also, hardware doesn't make a bad game either.

Wait, it I want to be a technical assface, hardware DEFINATELY makes a game. What the hell do you think it was made ON? Some piece of paper that majically transfered to your computer/console with a flick of the wrist? No.

But then again, I could say it only ASSISTS in making a good game, which is true as well.
 
Original games and concepts come from consoles far more often than they do with PCs. Hell, can anyone even name a single creative PC title that has come out in the last year and wasn't on consoles?

And no; hardware doesn't make a good game. Developers make a good game. Having a 7800GTX isn't going to fix gameplay mechanics. A polished turd is still a turd no matter which way you look at it.
 
Who the heck cares what system you use to play your games? I like the mouse and keyboard because I play FPSs. FPSs stink on a controller. Other games work better on controllers, and I wouldn't use a Mouse and Keyboard for them. The console’s 400 bucks. For the six months that it has marginally better graphics, and for the exclusive games that work well on consoles, it's really not a bad deal. There's no law that says you can't get both. To the whiners who moan about having the option to upgrade a PC and get mad at others because they exercise that option, I say this: In the time that you've spent arguing for your stupid illogical fan boy position, you could have gotten a second job and made enough money to buy a new PC every week. Get a life.




This thread is like a big bowl of retarded.
 
When I said hardware makes a game, I said GAME. Not a GOOD GAME.
I love technicalities.

Original concepts come from consoles? Are you retarded, you said yourself, (well, it's what you were inferring anwyay) that that is the developers role.

I really want to see you play Quake 4 on some paper.
 
Nuzzles said:
I really don't agree with your reasoning here.

Really, there aint a lot of people with dual-core CPU's right now, Xbox is going to the mass public, with three cores. When a majority of the public get computers with dual cores, X360 is going to be fairly matured, and only the amount of people now that have dual-core will have 3-4 cores (there's always the select few with more. Sir Frag. has got, what, 4 CPUs right now. But, only a small percentage has systems such as those).

So, really, when Intel/AMD release a 3 core CPU which is widely available (this would, by default, assume people in the future have a fair bit more knowledge about PC's than they do now, or Dell/otherOEM starts putting them in their budget PC's...), for a good price, you'll be one standing in the corner spouting "It's a new tech! Awesome." when in reality, it's been around since the Xbox 360.

Sort of went off on a tangent there... -.-

/wonders if it makes sense
Click to expand...

From all the developer interveiws it appears that no one expects to be able to take advantage of muliple cores in console games until the next generation of consoles9after P3 360 ect..) so I wouldnt get too excited about the hardware. PC technology especially when it comes to games seems to get assimilated quicker so I'd have to say stick with PC over console. Not to mention you can do a wee bit more with a PC then you can a console.
 
/thread

Playing semantics with retards gets old...and playing Quake 4 on paper? Lay off the heroin, Nuzzles. You're the one who believes hardware actually makes games.

Word play doesn't change the fact that you don't have a point. Original concepts are more prevalent on consoles because those who develop for consoles are more innovative.
 
make Audio pronunciation of "make" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mk)
v. made, (md) mak·ing, makes
v. tr.

1. To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create: made problems for us; making a commotion.


Without the hardware, we wouldn't have Quake 4, or many other games for that matter.

The paper? Meaning, that even if you are skilled in whatever you do, if you don't have to materials needed to turn what you want into reality, you can't do it. I guess I could say, you forgot your pencil today.

It's not the best analogy, but I can't be arsed coming up with a better one. I would hope you understand.
 
DarkSeraphim said:
Original games and concepts come from consoles far more often than they do with PCs. Hell, can anyone even name a single creative PC title that has come out in the last year and wasn't on consoles?

And no; hardware doesn't make a good game. Developers make a good game. Having a 7800GTX isn't going to fix gameplay mechanics. A polished turd is still a turd no matter which way you look at it.
Click to expand...

Civ 4. Sims 2 (the real version, not the console version). Lots of examples.

Why can't people just have both? I play games on both PC and console, because they both offer different types of games. The shooters are much better on PCs, as well as RTS-types or adventure games, and all the other types of games are generally better on consoles. This is another PC vs console thread that should probably be closed.
 
I don't think you're allowed to state sequels. Since, they're probably just 'rehashes'. ;)

To be honest, I just felt like having some sort of argument. Better than punching holes in the wall...-.-
 
Im not a big console fan, but you guys are killin me. Especially the ones who argue stuff like "buy a console and you will have better graphics for 6 months until the PC catches up". First off, it takes a couple years for PC graphics to evolve. Just because Nvidia and ATI release new hardware doesn't mean the games instantly start looking better. It takes developers a long time to take advantage of that new hardware. Then, when they do start looking better, its a mere couple games.

Games like Doom3, HL2 and FEAR raised the bar. Now for the next year or more all the games coming out will look about as good or maybe slightly better than those games, despite the fact ATI and Nvidia will release a new chip or two. Meanwhile, the developers of those games are working on the next step, to be released in a couple years. By then, you will have probably spent $1000 or more on video card, ram, and CPU upgrades.

If you buy a console today, you will have pretty good looking games.. Some more advanced than the PC, and some not, but they usually get better in the following months. Release titles hardly ever take full advantage of the hardware, but the developers have already been working on the ones that do for quite some time so it isnt a long wait. Chances are in 6 months most the games for your console will look better than current PC games. And, hey, in a couple years you will still have good looking games, and some will still look better than the games on PC. By then, you will have spent $0 on upgrades.
 
You can't say FEAR raised the same bar HL2 did when they're about a year apart release date wise... : /
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top