|
Post by numbuhk on Dec 2, 2006 11:53:38 GMT
We do kinda need consoles, as they all do differant things.
Example: Ds has a touch-screen, etc etc
|
|
|
Post by NumbuhInfinity on Dec 3, 2006 15:39:04 GMT
Also, I think it'd be a little difficult playing multiplayer games on a computer. You'd need two or more USB ports to fit two or more gamepads/joysticks, and even then you'd need the right one depending on the number of buttons needed for the game. Consoles usually have controllers come with them.
Also, if someone needs the computer, you're screwed of all gaming. You're only screwed with TV (for consoles) if you don't have a TV in your own room. But once you do, you can blast away whenever you want.
|
|
|
Post by Numbuh 0xFF on Dec 3, 2006 19:01:30 GMT
Well I do have my own computer (but not my own TV, interestingly enough) so the second argument doesn't hold -- but yes, playing 'party' games is easier on the console. On the other hand consoles don't have turn-based strategy games (Heroes and Age of Wonders, for instance) which happen to be a party favourite with my friends.
All in all you can experience the full spectrum of gaming bliss without consoles (so they aren't strictly needed) but you can do so WITH consoles as well. It's merely a matter of preferences and mine lay solidly on the PC side.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 3, 2006 20:27:55 GMT
Errrr, Consoles don't have turn-based Strategy games?
That sure gives a whole new perspective on those games of Romance of the Three Kingdoms II me and my friends used to play on the Super Nintendo, or that round of Nobunaga's Ambition I attempted on a regular Nintendo with my sister's BF just a month or two back.
While I own consoles and I love several of them, I sometimes think they just take up space--especially when I have to hook up ten of them just to be able to play any game I want at a time of my choosing. PCs have an advantage in that generally all games can be played on one PC--at most you might need a second PC for either older games or for multiplayer.
Speaking of which--NumbuhInfinity, you looked at "multiplayer" with the focus of "one game played on one machine with five (or however many) controllers." Don't forget about Local Area Networks and the Internet. Some games I simply can not imagine trying to play on one screen (Starcraft, for example, would get really boring, really quick, played like that). But something like, say, Super Bomberman, is fine on a console.
|
|
|
Post by demetheus on Dec 4, 2006 1:04:14 GMT
Honestly most consoles are simply specialized computers designed to play specific games and utilize certain aspects of video, audio, etc better than general PCs. That being said there are certain types of games that pop up more frequently on consoles than on PCs and vice versa. RTS games for instance tend to appear more on PCs than consoles (though that trend has been shifting recently) while some of the more "complex" RPGs like the Final Fantasies and the Tales series are almost exclusively consoles (Some FFs have PC iterations). Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. As for cost, you'd be surprised how quickly PC gaming can catch up to console costs. You have to upgrade pretty much every two years to stay fairly current and every four or five years will see you looking at a new motherboard and consequently a whole new system. Also PCs have MMORPGs and games that heavily encourage or practically demand the use of teamspeak making them eternal money pits.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 4, 2006 9:48:14 GMT
RTS games for instance tend to appear more on PCs than consoles (though that trend has been shifting recently) while some of the more "complex" RPGs like the Final Fantasies and the Tales series are almost exclusively consoles (Some FFs have PC iterations). Most console RPGs are hardly what I'd call "Complex." The PC has trumped consoles in terms of having rediculously complicated RPGs.
|
|
|
Post by numbuh50k on Dec 5, 2006 1:08:04 GMT
You right about the PC, being better and more efficent, but what about the classics that are on the consoles. I mean, it wouldn't be as fun playing Mario Bros. on the PC as opposed to the NES.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 5, 2006 9:12:39 GMT
You right about the PC, being better and more efficent, but what about the classics that are on the consoles. I mean, it wouldn't be as fun playing Mario Bros. on the PC as opposed to the NES. I find this to be true, but mostly for psychological reasons as opposed to anything to do with the games or systems. With an emulator, I could play Mario Bros. on my PC (and probably have), and it would be the exact same game it was on the NES, but I would never be able to get over the fact that I'm not playing it ON an NES. Seriously, that's the weird part of the whole emulator thing--a lot of people (me included) find that emulations are a nice "preview" but somehow we enjoy the real thing more. When I first played the Mega Man games on an emulator, I wondered what was so great about them. Then I played them on an actual NES and somehow they're just more addictive that way. I think a large part of this is that emulators remove any need you might have to improve your skill. Built-in Game Genies, save states, and in the case of MAME and other arcade emulators: unlimited coins, all contribute to this. Why should I actually improve my skill at R-Type if I can just give myself 100 continues by constantly pressing the "Insert Quarter" key? When I play on an emulator, I make an active effort to avoid using these features, but I find the fact that the option is even THERE is enough to hamper the experience.
|
|
|
Post by NumbuhInfinity on Dec 5, 2006 13:35:01 GMT
You right about the PC, being better and more efficent, but what about the classics that are on the consoles. I mean, it wouldn't be as fun playing Mario Bros. on the PC as opposed to the NES. I find this to be true, but mostly for psychological reasons as opposed to anything to do with the games or systems. With an emulator, I could play Mario Bros. on my PC (and probably have), and it would be the exact same game it was on the NES, but I would never be able to get over the fact that I'm not playing it ON an NES. Seriously, that's the weird part of the whole emulator thing--a lot of people (me included) find that emulations are a nice "preview" but somehow we enjoy the real thing more. When I first played the Mega Man games on an emulator, I wondered what was so great about them. Then I played them on an actual NES and somehow they're just more addictive that way. I think a large part of this is that emulators remove any need you might have to improve your skill. Built-in Game Genies, save states, and in the case of MAME and other arcade emulators: unlimited coins, all contribute to this. Why should I actually improve my skill at R-Type if I can just give myself 100 continues by constantly pressing the "Insert Quarter" key? When I play on an emulator, I make an active effort to avoid using these features, but I find the fact that the option is even THERE is enough to hamper the experience. Hmm. I think I'm kinda the same way. But even with save states, the games can still be challenging, at least for me, when I still die 100 times before I beat the stage/boss/puzzle/whatever. Plus save states are helpful in cutting down time (which I have less of at my age), such as having to go through the title screen again or either the entire game again, particularly for the really, really tough games like Marble Madness. A lot of games I play on the emulator, though, I've played the real thing already, so technically I'm not really cheating since I beat them already.
|
|
|
Post by numbuh060606 on Dec 5, 2006 19:15:49 GMT
I love consoles. can't wait to get a nintendo wii its gonna rock. And i personally cannot imagine a motion sensor controller for a PC it just sounds idiotic. o yeah and consoles are my l;ife ive got almost everyone released in my lifetime exept for the xbox.
|
|
|
Post by numbuheightbitstar on Dec 5, 2006 23:06:29 GMT
How many times you die isn't a good gauge of challenge. I usually die trillions of times in Mega Man games but I consider them some of the easier games I've played. Thing is, for me a good challenge doesn't just make me die a lot--you can die for a lot of reasons (enemy cheapshots, you got careless, you took the time out to explore, you jumped down a pit, thinking it was a secret passage, etc). A good challenge makes you doubt your skill, makes you say "I'm not sure I can do this" even if you've done it 100 times before.
That's where Save States screw things up: With them, it doesn't matter. It's not so much about skill as it is about getting lucky and hoping things turn out the way you want. You can save every five seconds, go a little to the left, see if an enemy appears and, if you screw up dealing with it, just load up a save state with a new plan. When I used to use emulators, this is exactly what I would do. For this reason you never have to get better at the game--it becomes more about keeping a save state in a position where you've got the upper hand, and if you screw up you just reload it.
@ not having enough time... you know, the more I think about it the more I don't really get that saying. Why do people want their games to be over quickly?
Personally, if there was anything I loved about school life, it was that it made my games last a really, really long time. Today, now that I'm out of school and job-searching, I find that I beat just about everything in less than a week, and it kinda makes the games feel shallow and unfulfilling. Having all the time in the world to plow through your favorite RPG sucks.
|
|