>quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Originally posted by Desert-Rat:
>Who said that you can´t play multiplayer games on consoles?
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I know that you can. But it's really quite unsatisfactory. Usually, you'll have to have >split screen, or you need those hand-held ones with monitors about five inches large. >Some games, I guess, can be played over a connection with other ones, but really, can >you compare it to PC??? I should guess that you can't. Where's StarCraft? Where's Myth? >Where are all the strategy games? Where is Q3, HL, CS or any other shoot-em-up worthy of >more than a scarce glance? And, ofcourse; Where are the classics??? Where's Alien >Attack, Marathon and Slithereens?
>
>However, I admit defeat in this aerea; Arcade games and car simulators. They are often >superior on consoles.
Ahem. First of all, there are MANY multiplayer games that don't require a split-screen mode, and they are great. And even when it is split-screen, the designer has usually made it into a format suitable for gameplay, and doesn't detract much from the gaming experience. Then, you say, no MMOGs. Well, yes, SO FAR, but they are working on this with the next-gen consoles and (possibly, though very unlikely) could surpass the PC one day in that category. Right now, the best way to go for that is a PC. And strategy games? StarCraft was released on a console, but I never played it so I don't know how it ranks to the original. There are a few strategy games available, if you know where to look. Shoot-'em-ups? They may not have Q3, HL, and CS but they have their own set of shoot-em'-ups that rank well against the PC favorites. It all depens on which game you prefer, really. And classics? I could say the same for PC! Where's Zelda? Where's Mario? Where's Sonic and FF and all of those other classics? Granted, a few have been released, but they never compared to the originals. And as far as "Slithereens" being a classic, well...

>quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>originally posted by Timinator:
>Yeah, but that assumes you want a PC. Which, of course, is really the only way to go if >you're serious about PC gaming. Or you could get a console for $300–$400 less and have a >similar hardware configuration and play really fun games, which is really the point. I'm >not bagging on computer games, but they are just a subset of the larger set of all video >games, which includes arcades, consoles, and PC games. I don't think it's really fair to >bash on any one member. I personally find console games to be more fun, and so do >millions of other people.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?Well. What can I say??? Go for the console, then! I agree that playing really fun games >is what it is all about. So if you really think console games are the best, I see no >reason not to go for one. After all, playing games I consider the most fun is the reason >why I chose computers before consoles.
Very well, if you like consoles none of us can change your mind. But don't ask why we'd willingly play one; you probably had a bad experience or two. But it seems to me if you want to play games
exclusively, a console is the way to go. Cheaper, same-or-better quality, and reasonable prices for addons. You don't have dozens of different configurations to choose from, or thousands of DLLs to install (in a PC's case). Just a console, perhaps a memory add-on as in the N64, and four controllers (and multitap if playing PS or PS2), and no more equipment is ever required. Although, I suppose someone could say the same about PC...
------------------
Corey³ (Cubed) |
Plugs³ |
EVula's Lair/me checks his digital watch...I should start thinking about warning the islanders about the impending lava flow...