PS3 Vs PC : gaming experience
- Thread starter john_avi
- Start date
- Status
kvikram
Forerunner
I find the graphics debate to be a bit silly IMO. Consider the fact that PC games that exceed graphics on consoles are scarce in the first place, and most modern console ports are very badly ported. Also consider that larger screens offer a much better experience than smaller screens do, and it is very inconvenient to switch from monitor to TV just for gaming, whereas you can launch games on consoles pretty much instantly. Better graphics on a smaller screen is not a great compromise.
comp@ddict
Galvanizer
If you got 17k bucks to spend, go for the PS3 I say it's worth it.
Spent an hour at Reliance Digital playing Uncharted 3 on the PS3. Boy last time I played on the PS3 I was playing the wrong games (FPS, that's PC's forte). I absolutely loved it. And the graphics is amazing!
Gameplay is SPOT ON!
Spent an hour at Reliance Digital playing Uncharted 3 on the PS3. Boy last time I played on the PS3 I was playing the wrong games (FPS, that's PC's forte). I absolutely loved it. And the graphics is amazing!
Gameplay is SPOT ON!
rajveersingh09
Contributor
I really dont find this topic to be debated on. You wanna play on PC go ahead. You wanna play on PS3 go ahead. Its the gamers wish. Techs specs graphics all are really out of the matter here. Are you enjoying it? Play mario on a p4 or play nintendo. If you enjoy it there you go you got your favorite. Gaming is not really about WINNING. Its about enjoying and completing a game. Play it on PC or Any console. The playing matters not which is better. Thats what i think. I cant afford a gaming pc so i bought PS3 because i wanted to Game was not thinking about which will be better actually.
Edit : For those who are saying its hard to play FPS on PS3. Thats really foolish try it hard and you will get it. Just because you are accustomed to a mouse that does not mean it is hard.
Edit : For those who are saying its hard to play FPS on PS3. Thats really foolish try it hard and you will get it. Just because you are accustomed to a mouse that does not mean it is hard.
quixand
Galvanizer
asingh said:Anyone who says, they do not prefer the PS3 because FPSs' are hard on it, are probably not even propa' gamers in the first place.
But you have to admit FPSs are way better with Keyboard and Mouse at 60 frames per second
I just went through my PC game library and realized that I play most of them with an Xbox-controller. Skyrim, Batman, Street Fighter, Crysis 2, Warhammer, APB, Gears of WarPortal 2, Darksiders, NBA. Quite a few.
I recently got a PS3 purely for it's exclusives, it's pretty awesome. Primarily because the gaming experience is very different from PC (I've never owned consoles, played some Nintendo, Sega etc) The navigation (after putting in your search terms) needs some fine tuning though.
Side note: When I was in school, I got a disc from Chip magazine. Installed Unreal Tournament (1999), it wouldn't run on my 64 MB PC so had to go into the folders and change .ini files to "fix" the resolutions etc. This w/o the internet or anything. Now people complain about installation times etc on PC. #Lulz. Busy world.
memnom
Forerunner
Ok this my take.
PC-Gaming is going to be here for LOOONNNGGG time, even after services like OnLive becomes the norm among enthusiasts and casual gamers alike, PC is going to stay. Cause way too many conglomerates are built on this very foundation.
Having said that, Consoles are going to become the mainstay or rather has already become the mainstay with gamers and from this point on it won't/can't recede. Explosive growth is the only trajectory it can take. May even match the PC penetration by the mid-cycle of the next gen consoles.
So the entire point on arguing which is better is moot. Its like Lamborghini vs Ferrari, there's always guys whos gonna see Ferrari as the purest of all racing machines and there's gonna be a huge fan base for lambos who think that the very embodiment of manliness lies with the bull. But each in their own right are the best of the best [i know axiomatically wrong, but u get the point]
If u got the money to get a watercooled, uber-looking, thats-wat-yo-mama-said PC then by all means get it. If u want a relaxed [doesnt mean non-intense] sense of gaming and have a huge TV get the PS3/Xbox.
P.S If the budget is the only constraint then go with a medium end PC, for various reasons including, not being forced to buy every game u ever wanna play but get the games you actually love. [Note, i spend close to 10-12k on games alone on the PC & PS3 so don't you dare call me a pirate
]
P.S Stop creating threads like this, as bluffmaster so eloquently put [and im paraphrasing] there are more than a million forum threads on this EXACT same topic on the www, take a peek at them , infact get your friend to read them if u can, far more intelligent/intellectual people than us have already done this topic to the death and not one of them ever proved Consoles are better than PC or vice versa.
PC-Gaming is going to be here for LOOONNNGGG time, even after services like OnLive becomes the norm among enthusiasts and casual gamers alike, PC is going to stay. Cause way too many conglomerates are built on this very foundation.
Having said that, Consoles are going to become the mainstay or rather has already become the mainstay with gamers and from this point on it won't/can't recede. Explosive growth is the only trajectory it can take. May even match the PC penetration by the mid-cycle of the next gen consoles.
So the entire point on arguing which is better is moot. Its like Lamborghini vs Ferrari, there's always guys whos gonna see Ferrari as the purest of all racing machines and there's gonna be a huge fan base for lambos who think that the very embodiment of manliness lies with the bull. But each in their own right are the best of the best [i know axiomatically wrong, but u get the point]
If u got the money to get a watercooled, uber-looking, thats-wat-yo-mama-said PC then by all means get it. If u want a relaxed [doesnt mean non-intense] sense of gaming and have a huge TV get the PS3/Xbox.
P.S If the budget is the only constraint then go with a medium end PC, for various reasons including, not being forced to buy every game u ever wanna play but get the games you actually love. [Note, i spend close to 10-12k on games alone on the PC & PS3 so don't you dare call me a pirate
]P.S Stop creating threads like this, as bluffmaster so eloquently put [and im paraphrasing] there are more than a million forum threads on this EXACT same topic on the www, take a peek at them , infact get your friend to read them if u can, far more intelligent/intellectual people than us have already done this topic to the death and not one of them ever proved Consoles are better than PC or vice versa.
R0@CH said:
lol go on MLG then and earn big cash winning CoD/Halo/Gears tournaments then?
There's a little bit of aim assist is there for lack of accuracy you get with the mouse, otherwise it would be hell trying to get a kill with the Analogue sticks (try plugging in a controller to your pc and operate the mouse with it). That doesn't mean shooting in consoles take no skills, because your opponent has the assist too. Its still a brutal contest of aiming and strategy regardless.
quixand said:But you have to admit FPSs are way better with Keyboard and Mouse at 60 frames per second
Honestly I find it a torture to play on PC now:
1. Installation time.
2. --Ahem time--.
3. Launch time.
4. Patch time.
5. Game setting time.
6. Driver optimization.
Half the time worried about FPS.
kauzy said:If u want to play FPS.. Get a PC..
If you want to play an RPG, a racing sim, a Third person genre, a sports game such as Fifa ( cannot be even compared to playing it on a PC).. AND those exclusives, get a PS3
Fixed!
And this:
memnom said:
Once in a while, threads like these pop out of nowhere and turns itself into a mudlsinging fest! :|
asingh said:Honestly I find it a torture to play on PC now:
1. Installation time.
2. --Ahem time--.
3. Launch time.
4. Patch time.
5. Game setting time.
6. Driver optimization.
Half the time worried about FPS.
Don't like second point, :no:
Launch time: I do not game a lot but the few I played; I never really noticed launch time to be a problem. ??
Patch time.: This I agree (tried playing crysis 2 and every time EA used to patch it
), but it ain't true for every other game.Driver optimization: Never had to do it with Nvidia. (It may be true for newly released cards probably); with my old GTS 250; everything works fine
Game setting time: Like what; I think I hardly spend 2 mins in setting the resolution to native in crysis & warhead. Not more than that. I guess this much you'll spend on console as well.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
And yeah :tsucks:
One may debate as mush as he want; PC vs PS3, PS3 vs XBox, Nvidia vs ATI (AMD), Intel vs AMD. Lokpal vs Jokepal, Windows vs Linux (not sure how I forgot to add it )
IMO "its all about playing good game and having fun" PC, console, playing some sport in ground or a board game with a kid. Have fun.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
kauzy said:If you want to play an RPG, a racing sim, a Third person genre, a sports game such as Fifa ( cannot be even compared to playing it on a PC).. get a PS3
Hmm, isn't this more specific to the game controller than the console itself. I mean I play fifa on PC with 360 controller, can not imagine what a console will add extra into that.
--- Updated Post - Automerged ---
asingh said:Anyone who says, they do not prefer the PS3 because FPSs' are hard on it, are probably not even propa' gamers in the first place.
Console fanboi
Sorry if the thread agitated you. Before I started this thread, I searched on net.First thing, my point of comparison was graphics only. Second thing, I started this thread here because I know there are several ppl here who own both a decent gaming rig as well as a console. So I thought such ppl can share their experience. I do not have a console so I was not sure about the graphics output of a console. It was mistake that in the title of the thread I mentioned "gaming experience" which should have been "graphics experience". And lastly I agree gaming experience on a console is a joyful ride that why it is so much popular and sold massively. It is a matter of personal preferences but ya I do not think there is any harm in comparing two things which offer good gaming experience. There does not exist any comparison on net which compares graphical performance of PC & console.memnom said:
dinjo said:
Not until the thread goes off-topic. The discussion is perfectly fine the way I see it. If you have anything constructive to add, please do so else refrain from posting the same thing over and over!
john_avi said:
No because it doesn't make any sense to bench a game on a GPU which is close to 5 years old and compare it with a present gen. GPU for the PC. What matters here is how well the games for the console are optimised so they make the best utilisation of the hardware on the console. For instance, exclusive titles such as Killzone 3, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2/3, God of War III, Gears of War 3 etc. brought out the best of the visuals from the respective console irrespective of the outdated hardware and the limitations. No doubt if these games were to be ported to the PC, the visuals could have been a lot better. OTOH there were instances of bad ports within consoles itself - Red Dead Redemption. The game fared well on the X360 but looked extremely choppy on the PS3 with extremely poor AA. You could blame R* for that. And then there are ports that make it to PC which have been poorly executed. Fable III, A more recent one - L.A. Noire. Even TES V: Skyrim is a console port evident with the inventory management and menu system.
comp@ddict
Galvanizer
1. Lesser than consoles often I believe, or even so, the loading times are miles miles better for the game
2. I don't like this
3. Hardly a few seconds c'mon
4. Crysis 2 was a disaster, but that was multiplayer and was common across all platforms If I recall, don't see any issue here. Rarely do some games come with game breaking bugs, but that usually happens across all platforms and is fixed ASAP.
And btw, "AHEM" has patching? LOL
5. Oh c'mon really? It takes less than 2 minutes (unless the menu is russian
)6. (pun intended only) Dual GPUs are used by such a small minority that they can be excluded LOLOLOLOL
On a serious note, I've never had driver problems. Using 6 month old catalyst for latest games and no issues!
Now, I dont think either platform is superior/inferior, I think both PC and Consoles are awesome. I just wish I could have both.
But, I have a very hard time believing console gaming is cheaper. Most comments here are like "If you dont have money to burn, buy a console." I dont see how this holds true, especially in India where PC games are dirt cheap (mostly) and console games are ridiculously priced. For example: I have close to 100 games in my steam account. I have some 10 retail copies of games, maybe around 10 titles on GoG.com, GamersGate and GMG together. Now, I must've spent around 10-11K for all these games(120+). Now, how many console games will I get for this much? 5-6? maybe 7? For me this is the deal breaker. Plus, I dont have a big-ass 40" HDTV. Everyone agrees you need a proper HDTV to enjoy console games. So, shouldnt that also be considered while suggesting consoles?
For PC, my argument is this: Do you already have a desktop with you? If yes, then how much must you spend to make it able to play games? Turns out, for most people only a GPU upgrade would do the trick. Also, if the goal is to have graphics on your PC be comparable to a console, then even a 5770 would be more than enough. Consoles are still at 720p. So 720p is absolutely no issue for a card like 5770 even for the latest games.
Now, my argument here is entirely about money/cost. If you take other constraints like ease of use, availability of exclusives etc. the picture changes completely. So, absolutely no argument there. Please dont flame and do correct me if I am wrong.
But, I have a very hard time believing console gaming is cheaper. Most comments here are like "If you dont have money to burn, buy a console." I dont see how this holds true, especially in India where PC games are dirt cheap (mostly) and console games are ridiculously priced. For example: I have close to 100 games in my steam account. I have some 10 retail copies of games, maybe around 10 titles on GoG.com, GamersGate and GMG together. Now, I must've spent around 10-11K for all these games(120+). Now, how many console games will I get for this much? 5-6? maybe 7? For me this is the deal breaker. Plus, I dont have a big-ass 40" HDTV. Everyone agrees you need a proper HDTV to enjoy console games. So, shouldnt that also be considered while suggesting consoles?
For PC, my argument is this: Do you already have a desktop with you? If yes, then how much must you spend to make it able to play games? Turns out, for most people only a GPU upgrade would do the trick. Also, if the goal is to have graphics on your PC be comparable to a console, then even a 5770 would be more than enough. Consoles are still at 720p. So 720p is absolutely no issue for a card like 5770 even for the latest games.
Now, my argument here is entirely about money/cost. If you take other constraints like ease of use, availability of exclusives etc. the picture changes completely. So, absolutely no argument there. Please dont flame and do correct me if I am wrong.
But PC GAMING IS MUCH CHEAPER!!!!!!! even if you were to get old games for the PS3 its still gonna cost you 1.5k a pop,you dont even need to spend that much amount of money while gaming on PC even if you wanna get a AAA title on the PC it is not gonna cost you more than 1.5K sure you can argue that Activision games are priced 3k but seriously who buys it here ,
4 years back i spent like 35K to get a mID end gaming rig and till iam playing all the AAA games with so much higher graphical fidelity and controls this year i bough Crysis 2 which cost me 800 and BF3 which was 1500rs all in all i only spend 2.3K to play some really good AAA games if i had gone for console gaming i would have had to pay 6K even NOW!!!
sure console gaming is comfortable but considering you need a good led hdmi monitor for 12k and console for 17K + all the 2.5k games you really need to shell out more on Console gaming if you are having an xbox 360 it is even worse you have to pay montly subscription fee on top of your broadband fee in order to play online games
Thanks to Steam i have bought like games worth 50$ for just 10 you cant HAVE THat in console gaming period
the only benefit of console gaming is the Comfort and the social atmosphere it provides apart from that it is just an overpriced luxury atleast in INDIA
4 years back i spent like 35K to get a mID end gaming rig and till iam playing all the AAA games with so much higher graphical fidelity and controls this year i bough Crysis 2 which cost me 800 and BF3 which was 1500rs all in all i only spend 2.3K to play some really good AAA games if i had gone for console gaming i would have had to pay 6K even NOW!!!
sure console gaming is comfortable but considering you need a good led hdmi monitor for 12k and console for 17K + all the 2.5k games you really need to shell out more on Console gaming if you are having an xbox 360 it is even worse you have to pay montly subscription fee on top of your broadband fee in order to play online games
Thanks to Steam i have bought like games worth 50$ for just 10 you cant HAVE THat in console gaming period
the only benefit of console gaming is the Comfort and the social atmosphere it provides apart from that it is just an overpriced luxury atleast in INDIA
- Status