When will PC graphics again outpace Console?

[DeChache]

Personally I think the textures look smashed on both consoles. I love the gritty look you get in PC games with all of the bip mapping and complex textures. Console games look flat and plasticity to me but for gaming when hanging out with your buds theres nothing better then a console and a big TV.

 

[Obi_Kwiet]

I also checked out GoW - and while it looked nice, I think DOOM 3 had it beat - it might be comparable to UT2K4 or so.

I didn't read far enough to see what bias led you to that insane conclusion, but... dang.

Either you're blind or a fan boy.

 

[Marvelous]

I didn't read far enough to see what bias led you to that insane conclusion, but... dang.

Either you're blind or a fan boy.

I concur...

 

[Dynafrom]

call of jaurez looks better than every game out.

 

[liveload]

Opinion:
Microsoft's Xbox has done more to hurt PC gaming than anything else, imo.
MS uses it's muscle to try redirect and force software development in the directions it benefits from. This has taken development houses like Epic into a whole other realm where they simply don't care about the PC anymore. UT2007 seems almost like an afterthought, a "here's a bone, now stfu" type of pacifier after years of stagnation.

I had an N64 back in the day and thought 007 was great, then I saw Unreal on a 12MB 3DFx Voodoo II. I sold the N64 and my old Pentium 75 and went PC. Nowadays I see things like Mark Rein saying the PC is dead. Oh how easily they forget. It was people like me that provided the means for them to get so big and famous (who hasn't heard of the Unreal engine?), now they just seem to be throwing enough of a bone to keep the fanatics quiet while they do everything they can to kill dev resources for PC games.

You give the fatcat execs a cash cow like the Xbox and wave all kinds of incentives under their noses and voila, the PC get second fiddle, if that.

 

[este]

I think consoles will always offer the better experience. PC will offer better eye candy, but for a price.

Aside from all your idiotic analogies and fan crap, its easy to understand why some people say PC is dead. This isn't a console forum its a PC Forum so I'm not expecting people to agree with me.

The xbox/ps3/wii all offer one thing PC can never do, commonality. That is, if YOU were a developer would you rather optimize you code for one platform and then get to know it for the next five years, or would you like to try and run your code on a billion combinations of different machines, drivers, new fancy shaders, etc etc ?

Think about the technical support costs for a PC game compared to a 360. Think about the level of optimizing that is just not possible with PC games, I think developers get lazy for sure, but its got to be tedious as hell to re-write and optimize the same effects over and over b/c of hardware/software changes. Think about the cost in developing for lots of different machines compared to just one or two.

I like PC gaming, its more technical, and I need a fast PC for my work anyway. But honestly if I had a nicer TV and more free time I would get a 360 and a Wii and call it good for games. Its all about GAMEPLAY, now that there is online gaming (a former PC stronghold) why not skip the incompatibility, driver issues, crashes, and in most cases get a more polished game ?

Fancy graphics and an exponential cost (over the run of a comparable console) aren't really enough for most people.

How many PC-exclusive titles can you think of ? I read one guy said Crysis won't come to 360... Yea, just like FarCry could never run on Xbox right ? I know it might not have all the same effects and candy, but the game will be there. And if the game is worth playing without all the distractions then woo hoo. Otherwise it will just be used to benchmark PC hardware. (FarCry was imho a horrible game, lame story, shitty AI, generic feel, but did look pretty)

In a couple years when PC have leaped WAY above consoles it 'may' be different, but there will always be a lot of advantages to consoles.

Don't know, but thats how I see it.

 

[spine]

PC gaming will die when consoles come with a keyboard and mouse as standard.

Until then, consoles are for noobs.

FPS games with a shitty analogue stick with an overly huge deadzone and a ludricrously slow turn rate reduced deliberately because the framerate will naturally be retardly low making zippy look movemets a slideshow? No thanks...

It makes me laugh all these next gen console games with decent graphics but choppy framerates. It looks good in a static magazine shot, but falls apart in motion. Consoles have been guilty of this since it all went 3D. The only consoles that maintained high framerates in almost all games as standard no matter what were the Megadrive and SNES.


Graphics are nothing without decent framerates. PC's will always dominate here.

 

[Brent_Justice]

I agree. I don't own one (yet...) but from all the reviews and screenshots I've seen I don't think there is any comparison. Just the fact that it can average 48.7fps @ 1600x1200 with maxed settings in Oblivion (from the [H] review) is something that no console can touch.


Brent's 8800 review on [H]

Try 2560x1600 max in-game settings in Oblivion with one 8800 GTX playable = sex

 

[gravity]

PC can be faster than consoles, but in order to achieve those speeds, you will have to pay more than the price of a console than for just the graphics card.

I would say the graphics of the ps3 and 360 are on par with a top of the line computer right now though, and from a practical standpoint, there is little difference between the three.

 

[Dan_D]

I think consoles will always offer the better experience. PC will offer better eye candy, but for a price.

Horse feces. The experience on the right PC is as good and can better than any console. You can run your games on the TV's just as easily as an XBox 360, and you can also get decent game controllers for them. NFSMW is a good example of how a console game can be experienced as well on the PC. I agree that any superiority enjoyed by the PC on the same game is going to come from VERY expensive hardware.

Aside from all your idiotic analogies and fan crap, its easy to understand why some people say PC is dead. This isn't a console forum its a PC Forum so I'm not expecting people to agree with me.

I think PC gaming is going to live on, but only because the computer and the consoles are eventually going to be one in the same. Consoles are becoming more PC like with every generation.

The xbox/ps3/wii all offer one thing PC can never do, commonality. That is, if YOU were a developer would you rather optimize you code for one platform and then get to know it for the next five years, or would you like to try and run your code on a billion combinations of different machines, drivers, new fancy shaders, etc etc ?

Agreed.

Think about the technical support costs for a PC game compared to a 360. Think about the level of optimizing that is just not possible with PC games, I think developers get lazy for sure, but its got to be tedious as hell to re-write and optimize the same effects over and over b/c of hardware/software changes. Think about the cost in developing for lots of different machines compared to just one or two.

Agreed.

I like PC gaming, its more technical, and I need a fast PC for my work anyway. But honestly if I had a nicer TV and more free time I would get a 360 and a Wii and call it good for games. Its all about GAMEPLAY, now that there is online gaming (a former PC stronghold) why not skip the incompatibility, driver issues, crashes, and in most cases get a more polished game ?

Agreed. Even so, there are games on PC that just aren't done justice on the console, such as FPS and RTS games.

Fancy graphics and an exponential cost (over the run of a comparable console) aren't really enough for most people.

Agreed.

How many PC-exclusive titles can you think of ? I read one guy said Crysis won't come to 360... Yea, just like FarCry could never run on Xbox right ? I know it might not have all the same effects and candy, but the game will be there. And if the game is worth playing without all the distractions then woo hoo. Otherwise it will just be used to benchmark PC hardware. (FarCry was imho a horrible game, lame story, shitty AI, generic feel, but did look pretty)

The versions of Farcry on the console aren't the same thing. They are far more linear and lack the open environments due to limitations of memory and the need to have the game contained on disk rather than on the hard drive. What made Far Cry great is actually very much a PC only experience. The consoles simply lack the most important feature of the game and as a result the consoles fall flat here.

In a couple years when PC have leaped WAY above consoles it 'may' be different, but there will always be a lot of advantages to consoles.

There will always be advantages with PCs as well. Your point about the advantage of consoles is well taken though.

 

[phide]

That is, if YOU were a developer would you rather optimize you code for one platform and then get to know it for the next five years, or would you like to try and run your code on a billion combinations of different machines, drivers, new fancy shaders, etc etc ?

Were I a developer?

I think there's something to be said for developing for an ever-changing platform. You're no longer boiling your titles down to a common denominator: you're always in a state of pushing the envelope. You're trying to predict the direction of hardware, and you're aiming at that target. You can overshoot it or undershoot it. If you look at Far Cry, for instance, you'll see something that slightly overshot. In time, hardware evolves and now that target has paced back.

I'm not programmer, but I enjoy the challenge of making XHTML/CSS-based sites render the same across modern, obsolete and obscure browsers alike. I enjoy marking them up semantically, making them conform to strict W3C and ultra-strict accessibility standards and to my own even stricter standards. I'll sweat over too large or complex a CSS file.

What I'm getting at is that development is not always about the A to B. Development is not about the money, but is rather about the journey. You can climb the hill down the street, or you can reach the apex of Everest. I'll choose Everest.

 

[Commander Suzdal]

It all looks ugly as a whole? Maybe that wasnt the best example but Gothic 3 looks like crap, thats not what I bought a 7900GT SLI for. Looks old and dated.

Ah, gotcha. That's what I like about, say, FarCry--even if it doesn't have cutting-edge tech anymore (and that's probably arguable), the artistic design of the game had a bright, rich, colorful feel to it. Walking out of the bunker and looking over that first beach always made me smile. Is that kinda where you're aiming? Quality of artistic vision rather than technical quality?

 

[DaCoOlNeSs]

for me its not a matter of how a game looks, its how fun it is to play. So for now I will stick with my Xbox 360.

 

[este]

Agreed.

Even so, there are games on PC that just aren't done justice on the console, such as FPS and RTS games.

Yea, RTS on console suck. But as someone posted above only b/c of the controller. As far as FPS go, I'd rather play more of a Halo FPS then a CS FPS any day. Its just a different type of game. The 'hardcore' FPS players will never be happy with consoles.... I'll never be happy with the 'hardcore' fps players so it all works out These games are supposed to be FUN, not always feel like professional gaming / work.

I do agree that PC has more potential. But the reality is with powerful consoles that now have such a huge installed base, more time and money is going to be spent on those. PC gaming won't 'die' it just might be getting smaller (expect the console to PC ports, those will get bigger)

 

[este]

Ah, gotcha. That's what I like about, say, FarCry--even if it doesn't have cutting-edge tech anymore (and that's probably arguable), the artistic design of the game had a bright, rich, colorful feel to it. Walking out of the bunker and looking over that first beach always made me smile. Is that kinda where you're aiming? Quality of artistic vision rather than technical quality?

Yea, I remember that. Just about there I learned how awful the AI was. Ruined the game for me.

 

[ITSTHINKING]

call of jaurez looks better than every game out.

true dat

 

[Dan_D]

Yea, I remember that. Just about there I learned how awful the AI was. Ruined the game for me.

The AI in Far Cry is vastly superior to that of most games. They actually flank, take cover, flush you out and try to actually fire in your direction. Sure it errors out and glitches from time to time, but I'd stack Far Cry's AI against almost any FPS game out there. Console or otherwise.

Yea, RTS on console suck. But as someone posted above only b/c of the controller. As far as FPS go, I'd rather play more of a Halo FPS then a CS FPS any day. Its just a different type of game. The 'hardcore' FPS players will never be happy with consoles.... I'll never be happy with the 'hardcore' fps players so it all works out These games are supposed to be FUN, not always feel like professional gaming / work.

I do agree that PC has more potential. But the reality is with powerful consoles that now have such a huge installed base, more time and money is going to be spent on those. PC gaming won't 'die' it just might be getting smaller (expect the console to PC ports, those will get bigger)

Absolutely, it is the controller that is the hinderance to RTS games on the console. Same as with FPS games. Auto aiming and huge hitboxes, and altered damage values designed to compensate for controller shortcomings just isn't my thing.

The only FPS game I enjoy on the console is Condemed Criminal Origins. The reason is the controls are well done and not too sensitive, and the action is slower and therefore easier to handle on the game controller. Now I will say that while I am no where near as good as some with the game controller, I can in fact play an FPS with a game controller, but find it to be an experience that is less than enjoyable. I played Halo 2 for an hour the other night and never died, but I quit playing it as the controller stuff just became tiresome.

 

[BoredTiger]

That's the worst analogy I've ever read. You do realize that the Mustang whoops the snot out of the 350Z in the 1/4? Do you also realize that you can throw a turbo or supercharger setup on the Mustang? Do you realize that when you do that, you're looking at 450HP easy?

Let's not even talk about what GTO's, Corvette's and the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300C SRT8's can do to a 350Z.

Sure the 350Z can out handle some of those cars on a twisty road course, but again you can mod those cars and change that.

I'd match my old 2002 Firehawk against the 350Z in any category any day of the week.

In no way is your XBox 360-PC analogy valid.

Wow...what a response.

I think you didn't really understand this guy's analogy Mustang man

We're talking about a STOCK mustang = STOCK XBOX360.

And...350Z = PC (where you can start piling shit on and make it perform insanely well).


The point that you seem to be getting upset is that in this analogy, you don't MODIFY (add supercharger/turbo/exhaust/bore/headers/etc) a XBOX360/Mustang. That's the analogy.


It's obvious that you're a fan of the hot rods and I have no problems with that, but you jumped the gun here on flaming the analogy.

I for one would like the new Challenger when it comes out

 

[BoredTiger]

I'd own a 360 anyday for 300 but I think the PS3's price compared to what you get out of it is a bit steep. 600 bucks will buy you a low-end PC and upgrade-ability. I think a big issue here is that very few people are going to buy a PS3 at such a high price. I said it one other time also, gamespots 360 / PS3 comparison on NFS Carbon is night and day. Anti-alaising, lighting, and detail are terrible compared. Ofcourse this is the PS3's debut, but the NFS line is a highly bought retail game. C'mon! And hey, I'm no Sony stiffler, got a PS, PS2 and 30 games to go along with it, but times change 360 imo ftw.

BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE - Check

MEMORY CARDS from previous platform (PS2) - Check

DVD MOVIES - Check

BLU-RAY - Check (this feature alone will cost anywhere from 600 - 1200 dollars, whether you buy a PC BLU-RAY drive OR a standalone player which will upconvert older DVDs).


So...your claim that the price for this hardware = PS3 is too steep. I say...you should reconsider that opinion.

 

[BoredTiger]

I can end the arguement easier for you all:

The hardware we have can trump the stuff in the PS3 and 360 but there are NO GAMES THAT USE IT. 90% of the games we get use dated graphics, and the stuff that comes out thats more recent, like Splinter Cell Double Agent, Rainbow Six Vegas, etc, is usually ported & POORLY OPTIMIZED anyways.

So we wait for like a few titles a year that look good, and spend thousands more on our hardware.

Every 360 game, even the shitty ones, look better than PC shitty ones. Thats plain FACT. Fact of the matter is on the highest of high end PC has the hardware (obviously) to do more than the 360 -- but how often if ever does it happen? Not really often. Oh wow, Crysis! 1 damn game. The consoles are getting TONS OF GORGEOUS games. Not just a handful, you can go down the 07 release list for 360/PS3 and pull out a ton of gorgeous looking games. The gameplay quality is totally up in the air since the games aren't out yet -- but they for sure LOOK great (which is what were talking about here)

Theres really no contest. I'm speaking passionately about this because I have went on a balls out system this year and have nothing but ugly games to play on it (except for Oblivion). And the good ones dont run well because theyre ported like ass from the 360, like DA. Oblivion looks great but its really nothing compared to where things are going and already are.

Fact of the matter is, if you have a HDTV already buying a console is a MUCH better buy for gaming than PC in terms of graphics quality. If you dont, then its up in the air because you'd be spending similar amounts on a HDTV+ Console as you would a balls out PC.

Again there are hardly, if any games to run on it..

On top of all the good looking console games coming out that are dubious in quality, there are tons of great looking AAA titles coming out that we know will look good. Can we say that for the PC? No. All you will hear on these boards is Crysis, UT2007 and Alan Wake, 2 of those 3 will be on consoles, and its quite possible Crysis will turn up there too.

I have my balls out PC because I love FPS games and FPS on a console is a joke (Sorry to all those Halo 2 players out there ) But I don't kid myself, I know that for everything else the console is better. And as soon as I can go balls out on a HDTV and a console I will.

Theres no buying a 7900GT SLI set up and then feeling like you've got dated hardware because the 8 series comes out, and then a year later feeling the same because the 8900 series comes out, etc. Your super hardware performs worse and worse over time as new crap comes out so often and unless you keep pace and update all the time (spending tons of cash) you will only enjoy top top end performance for a year at a time. I.E. If nothing super cool comes out this year, you're screwed and you need to buy top end the next year again. It's akin to saying oh nothing good came out for PS3 this year, I gotta buy another PS3version 2.0 next year for this one hot game thats coming out!

Consoles look BETTER as time goes on, has anyone seen BLACK for PS2? It looks unbelievable. You drop 400 or 600$ once and your games look good all the time, for at least 5 years at a time, and the investment becomes sweeter and sweeter as time goes on. Sure in 5 years PC games will be likely quite ahead of the 360/PS3 in graphics, but how good does it have to get? Could you honestly complain if every game on the 360 looked as good as Alan Wake? Especially given the money saved.

Theres always something better in terms of hardware on the PC, but there isnt always something better (looking) in terms of software to match it.

Very interesting perspective.

But to downplay PC graphics to that of XBOX360 and PS3, is a bit skewed. I absolutely agree that DA is playing like ass on a PC (I still enjoy it). It's beautiful though.

Lets look back and consider the types of games that you play. If you're a console gamer, then you're a console gamer. Simple as that. For me, I only play sports/fighting/racing/occasional adventure(God of War/Final Fantasy/etc) games on Consoles. Other than that, like you, FPS = PC all the way.

But FPS's are some of my favorite games. That and SIMULATIONS. You won't be seeing any Flight Sim games (which are lacking attention in the pc industry...I miss the good old day of Wing Commander). Also, in terms of popularity, what is the leading game out there right now? World of Warcraft (I don't play this game).

Graphics from Diablo/DiabloII/Starcraft/Warcraft were way ahead of those of consoles at their time.

If you decide to compare Console graphics vs. PC graphics, you have to stay in their respective periods. You say CRYSIS, one game, big deal? How about FAR CRY? How about BATTLEFIELD 2? HALF LIFE 2? Counter-Srike and CS: Source?

I think it's a futile argument to compare apples to oranges. Consoles are good for what they are, but they're not upgradeable and that's their main flaw. I know plenty of people who happily play HALO/Gears of War etc. with their gamepads, but I prefer the mouse and keyboard.

It's just personal preference. I wouldn't say that Consoles are superior to PC graphics. Afterall, consoles are striving to be like PCs. We all know that the XBOX was essentially a PC in a console.

So what's the big deal? Console players enjoy your console. PC gamers will play PCs.

 

[Firebat]

Take the 350Z for instance, you can buy one for $27K new (Same price as the Mustang GT) and get similar performance. (often better with the right drivers.. )

Oh my dear lord, you just made my day with the better drivers joke.

I think consoles are certainly on the rise. PC "enthusiast" gaming seems to be going down. It's all about the $ people. 400 vs. 2000

 

[SPOOKYSHOGUN]

PC gaming will die when consoles come with a keyboard and mouse as standard.

Until then, consoles are for noobs.

FPS games with a shitty analogue stick with an overly huge deadzone and a ludricrously slow turn rate reduced deliberately because the framerate will naturally be retardly low making zippy look movemets a slideshow? No thanks...[/b]

I'm with you on that. The day they put out a mouse and keyboard (and games that are designed to utilize them) for the X360 and ps3, I'm ceasing the PC upgrades. I've been buying top notch PC hardware for far too long and financially it is no longer practical considering the returns on my investments. Currently, console wise, the Wii attempts to present a playable fps format on consoles but for now the execution is in its infancy stage and the graphics will never be on par with PC or the other new consoles. I think that the Wii might be able to make fps fun and precise, providing the game developers focus on streamlining their graphics engines appropriately for its hardware capabilities/limitations. I'm certain that decent looking but excellent playing fps games will be made for that system so that's what I'm buying for now.

Back to the topic though. My opinion is that top notch PC graphics outpace top notch console graphics currently. I don't think that should matter though. Games with well done graphics (not necessarily the best), solid coding, and great controls are treasures wherever they are found.

 

[Domini]

PC gaming will die when consoles come with a keyboard and mouse as standard.

if they came standard with keyboards and mouse then it wouldnt be a console anymore, it would just be anothor pc.

 

[Cbone]

To stay on topic, PC graphics are already better, if you want to play Oblivion or the occasional FPS or RTS. I played Oblivion PC and thought that it was a boring game that was pretty. Why are all these UE3 games coming to PS3 and 360? Where is the PC love?
All that comes to PC are shoddy ports. Why isn't Devil May Cry 3 for the PC a better looking game? As many times as it was delayed, it should be. Why can't they release these ports w/ a high-res texture pack or something? Who cares if it's a 3 GB install?

One area the PC could dominate is in fighting games. Fighting games are dead on console. The MUGEN community has shown us that PC gamers would flock to decent fighting games. Games for Windows? Microsoft will even help! Why are there no decent fighting games for the PC? Why couldn't Tekken make the trip to PC? Or Virtua Fighter? If Capcom or SNK gave a whiff of a roll your own fighter using high-res versions of the sprites, I might die.

 

[SNYP40A1]

When the Super Nintendo came out, there was no PC / PC Hardware that could provide graphics similar to even a crappy game such as F-Zero or Super Mario World...damn I feel old. When the N64 came out, how long did it take PC hardware and software to match the graphics capability of games such as Mario 64 or Waverace even...it took forever. The N64 came out in 96 if I remember correctly, how long did it take PCs to match the graphics capability? A long time, I don't remember exactly. Well, the XBOX was a PC, a Celeron-based PC with a good graphics processor for its time. So the XBOX graphics capability was basically matched by the top of the line systems that existed at the time. And now we see that PS3 graphics, although good, are already beaten by top of the line PC systems which existed at launch. So I would say that PC hardware has been developing even faster. The reason why is because the PC market is so huge. Consoles offer volume, but they are not as profitable for the video technology suppliers. Suppliers want to be associated with a kick-ass console, but that's not where they make their money. Rumor is that Intel declined to build a processor for the Xbox 360 due to lack of potential profit...can someone verify this?

 

[D!Z]

I always been a fan of the pc. But ever since i played gears of war i just dont know. I have a 8800 gtx sli top of the line machine. Why would i want too sit and fight with tom clancy vegas or play Star trek legacy that people been saying is going too kick @ss because the way it looks and is shaping up too be and turns out too be? As for people saying alan wake and crysis is going too rock, how do we know? because the screenshots? video? hype? Gaming is a wait and see i think. Its a shame im letting my sli rig sit idle and playing the xbox because i really think pc's are really where it should be.

 

[BoredTiger]

I always been a fan of the pc. But ever since i played gears of war i just dont know. I have a 8800 gtx sli top of the line machine. Why would i want too sit and fight with tom clancy vegas or play Star trek legacy that people been saying is going too kick @ss because the way it looks and is shaping up too be and turns out too be? As for people saying alan wake and crysis is going too rock, how do we know? because the screenshots? video? hype? Gaming is a wait and see i think. Its a shame im letting my sli rig sit idle and playing the xbox because i really think pc's are really where it should be.

I would think that Crysis will deliver, judging by the way they produced FAR CRY, which was really an unexpected hit for me.

When I saw the hawaiian shirt and box art, I was a bit skeptical, but for some reason, I was compelled to buy the game (I had not read or seen any advertising for this game prior to buying it). Popped it in and that's all I played for 3 days straight.

As for RAINBOX SIX:VEGAS, I'm having a blast playing it. It's pretty interesting, in that the game play structure (not so much the gameplay) is very console friendly. The plan your mission aspect of the game seems to be gone now (mind you, I haven't played Rainbow Six since Raven Shield).

The graphics are beautiful and I've faced little to NO problems on RS:V than on SP: DA. SP: DA really took a lot of wrestling to get to a point where it was not frustrating me.

VEGAS has really kept me busy though, for the past day, and I hope to finish it in another and I think it was a solid buy.

So, if you're curious, with your rig, you should more than able to play and enjoy VEGAS without issue.

Don't let that beast of a rig sit idle

 

[GMoney42392]

Very interesting perspective.

But to downplay PC graphics to that of XBOX360 and PS3, is a bit skewed. I absolutely agree that DA is playing like ass on a PC (I still enjoy it). It's beautiful though.

Lets look back and consider the types of games that you play. If you're a console gamer, then you're a console gamer. Simple as that. For me, I only play sports/fighting/racing/occasional adventure(God of War/Final Fantasy/etc) games on Consoles. Other than that, like you, FPS = PC all the way.

But FPS's are some of my favorite games. That and SIMULATIONS. You won't be seeing any Flight Sim games (which are lacking attention in the pc industry...I miss the good old day of Wing Commander). Also, in terms of popularity, what is the leading game out there right now? World of Warcraft (I don't play this game).

Graphics from Diablo/DiabloII/Starcraft/Warcraft were way ahead of those of consoles at their time.

If you decide to compare Console graphics vs. PC graphics, you have to stay in their respective periods. You say CRYSIS, one game, big deal? How about FAR CRY? How about BATTLEFIELD 2? HALF LIFE 2? Counter-Srike and CS: Source?

I think it's a futile argument to compare apples to oranges. Consoles are good for what they are, but they're not upgradeable and that's their main flaw. I know plenty of people who happily play HALO/Gears of War etc. with their gamepads, but I prefer the mouse and keyboard.

It's just personal preference. I wouldn't say that Consoles are superior to PC graphics. Afterall, consoles are striving to be like PCs. We all know that the XBOX was essentially a PC in a console.

So what's the big deal? Console players enjoy your console. PC gamers will play PCs.

exactly. consoles and pc will always have enough differences that comparing the two will end in a !!!!!!-filled flamewar. it goes like this:

consoles:
pro: cheap relative to a good midrange-high end gaming pc
pro: gamepad is better for platformers, racers, sports, and sometimes adventure games
pro: no software worries; the games just work
con: no upgradeability
con: gamepads suck for fps, rts, mmo, and most adventure games
con: no potential for tweaking/tinkering (except for modchips, but honestly how many average users have those???)

pcs:
pro: upgreadability
pro: keyboard+mouse is better for fps, rts, mmo, and most adventure games
pro: potential for tweaking/tinkering (read: overclocking)
con: expensive relative to consoles
con: keyboard+mouse is worse for platformers, racers, soprts, and some adventure games
con: software worries; having keep up with drivers, patches, mods, etc

like tiger said, apples and oranges.