Comparing PC with Console games

[General Chaos]

How about the years that consist the lifespan of the console it was being compared against? For example, if the console it was being compared to had 2000-2009, you'd only use PC games released during 2000 and 2009.

That's another good idea. This thread is helping me wrap my head around the comparison groups a little bit better. As a note, my whole reason for starting this conversation was that I found myself comparing games in my collection, trying to decide which console I liked most, and a hell of a lot of PC games made the list. It just didn't seem fair to either leave them out of the tally or to amass 20+ years of games against something like the N64's library.

[Hobie-wan]

There's also a lot of tweaking/fiddling involved just to play PC games. Whereas console games are much more plug and play.

But of course the tweaking and fiddling is also what ends up making it better. Console only people are happy to play in HD at 720p on their TV. If you even remotely kept up with what was current on your PC you've surely been able to play modern games at a resolution of 1024x768 or better on your PC for a decade.

But of course consoles cost less. So again, its all a balance of what you want to do.

[neilencio]

The way I look at PC as a gaming platform is it's not just one gaming platform but a series with several iterations per generation. Comparing a gaming PC from 1999 to a gaming PC from 2006 would be like comparing a PS2 to a PS3. viewed this way, the PC's main advantage is kickass backwards compatibility.

[jfrost]

Not directly related to the topic, but still:

I'm usually puzzled as well when people draw comparisons about PC graphics and console graphics (normally saying that PC graphics are better).

Now, most of the time PC games's graphics are indeed better, given some specs, but when making a comparison, isn't it a bit unfair? There are millions of configurations PCs can have, while consoles are uniform. Should we compare console games to PC games running on recommended settings (I don't think that's fair to console games), maximum settings (ditto), or minimum settings (and I think this is unfair to the PC games themselves)?

Sometimes I think the comparisons should be made using the most prevalent PC settings among the consumer base, but how could one acquire such data I have no idea.

[MrPopo]

I think you need to go by the potential of a given PC game. With a console game the developers know exactly what hardware they have and so their maximum settings are tailored for the console (and also equal the minimum settings). With PC games the developers will create maximum settings that are attainable. After all, they have to make sure that something on max settings actually works and doesn't have interesting artifacts that only crop up when you go into 1024x AA or something similar.

During development you set a target; you build a machine and design the game so it runs at a good speed with maximum settings on it. Then you can try out other iterations to build a full set of specs. Then when you compare graphics you can compare maximum to recommended to whatever the competition is. Maximum lets you know just how pretty it can be, while recommended will tell you how pretty the average user should see it as.

Does this cause consoles to look worse in comparison? Of course it does. They also fail hardcore for FPS's and RTS's due to fundamental control issues. That's simply the strength of the PC platform. Consoles pull ahead in other areas leaving the two platforms relatively balanced out. What matters is what type of game you like.

[GSZX1337]

Now, most of the time PC games's graphics are indeed better, given some specs, but when making a comparison, isn't it a bit unfair? There are millions of configurations PCs can have, while consoles are uniform. Should we compare console games to PC games running on recommended settings (I don't think that's fair to console games), maximum settings (ditto), or minimum settings (and I think this is unfair to the PC games themselves)?

I'm going to disagree with you there. The main advantage of PC games is that you get better quality with a better machine (if the game was coded well).

I know I'm probably going to be hated for saying this, but your average PC gamer* craves power. They want to see how high you can crank up the resolution, how many FPS the machine can get, how high they can overclock, how high can their score be in 3DMark, can their machine run Crysis, etc. Even if they don't have the cash, they want to know these things.

Comparing console visual quality to low and medium PC settings can be interesting, but if you want a serious comparison of eye candy, you have to put it on high.

*By average PC gamer, I mean people who play Steam and Games for Windows games, not people who play Solitaire or PopCap games.

Sometimes I think the comparisons should be made using the most prevalent PC settings among the consumer base, but how could one acquire such data I have no idea.

...Why? Like I said above, the main advantage of (as well as what attracts gamers to) the PC is that you can crank up the settings.

[General Chaos]

Does this cause consoles to look worse in comparison? Of course it does. They also fail hardcore for FPS's and RTS's due to fundamental control issues. That's simply the strength of the PC platform. Consoles pull ahead in other areas leaving the two platforms relatively balanced out. What matters is what type of game you like.

I think historically PCs have also dominated the WRPG scene, but obviously lacked a lot of the JPRGs. This, however, is changing. More and more of the big WRPGs are being released on the consoles. However, I still think the PC receives quite a bit more. The same could be said for western ARPGs.

[d123456]

For me, I work on a pc.
Playing a game on a pc, is not relaxing for me.
That and I have yet to come accross something worthwhile for the pc.
Yep, not a bog fan of FPS, yet I am very keen on Fps (Frames per second) in games. 60 Fps min. or the game does not exist.

[jfrost]

@MrPopo

So your point is that the advantage of PC games have of multiple possible configurations is kind of balanced out with the need of optimization to each of these configurations by the developers?

(You did say that even so PC games have the upper hand graphically, but I want to know if I understood you correctly.)

@GSZX1337

I still don't think it is meaningful to compare maximum settings on PC to console games.

I think that graphical comparisons should be made according to more prevalent settings available among the consumer base because that's what most users would use. To me it doesn't make sense to crank up all the settings and see what happens because that's not what most users would see when playing.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

@MrPopo

So your point is that the advantage of PC games have of multiple possible configurations is kind of balanced out with the need of optimization to each of these configurations by the developers?

(You did say that even so PC games have the upper hand graphically, but I want to know if I understood you correctly.)

@GSZX1337

I still don't think it is meaningful to compare maximum settings on PC to console games.

I think that graphical comparisons should be made according to more prevalent settings available among the consumer base because that's what most users would use. To me it doesn't make sense to crank up all the settings and see what happens because that's not what most users would see when playing.

Well do comparisons based on the recommended settings then.