Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6TcNDpc5oU I kinda wanna be youtube famous for this kinda shizz and get paid to just post ridiculous gameplays on youtube so please tell me what you think? THANKS and watch in 720 HD and comment rate and subscribe. Any and all feedback is appreciated.
Re: BLACK OPS COMMENTARY (HILARIOUS LOL)
That game looks very boring. Did you speed the video up, though?
The game looks normal speed.. but he recorded his voice over the video after he played the game. I don't think you have a good commentary voice. You should work on not being so monotone... as it can get boring at times. Also, there was one scene where you said something was on your right when in game it was actually on your left.
Ok man, after reading the thread title (FUCKING HILARIOUS ZOMFG LOLZ) I was expecting it to be at least semi humorous. But I was wrong. Mate...if you really have aspirations of being 'youtube famous' and getting paid to do that shit , then you have a lot of work to do. For starters, you have to get out of the monotone voice - like everyone else said. Secondly, theres no enthusiasm when you talk. If the vid is exciting or funny, then you should be speaking accordingly. If it isn't funny or exciting, then why am I watching it? Honestly, that video was just 8 minutes of boredom.
There are plenty of people who are good at this kind of thing already with examples online. You could stand to learn a thing or ten.
lmfao i just put hilarious in the title so you guys would click it and yeah i won't be monotone next time i wanted to see how people reacted to that robot voice style of talking.
You're fucking awesome at the game to be fair...
I don't get it.... which part was supposed to be hilarious? Or even remotely amusing? Just seems to be a view of someone playing one of the many mind numbingly boring COD clones....
Step 1: Make misleading title to your video Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit! Thanks for the view though bro.
reborn wrote on Sat, 12 March 2011 03:26 You're fucking awesome at the game to be fair... Thank you sir, I greatly appreciate this feedback. I just went 79-1 today! Set my highest KD ever!
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 03:13 reborn wrote on Sat, 12 March 2011 03:26 You're fucking awesome at the game to be fair... Thank you sir, I greatly appreciate this feedback. I just went 79-1 today! Set my highest KD ever! So do you think this game is worth getting on PC? My mates want to play on Xbox live...but I don't own a 360, and not prepared to go out and buy one. Just as good on PC? I pref FPS games w/ mouse and keyboard. Controllers are...meh.
Any FPS game that is mult-platform between both consoles and PCs will always be better on PC. Also, since you don't already own a 360, you therefore do not have an Xbox LIVE account. If you were to get this game for 360 and wanted to play it online with other people, you would have to pay for an Xbox LIVE Gold subscription. Playing it on PC is free... but you can't play with people who play on Xbox.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 09:35 Any FPS game that is mult-platform between both consoles and PCs will always be better on PC. Also, since you don't already own a 360, you therefore do not have an Xbox LIVE account. If you were to get this game for 360 and wanted to play it online with other people, you would have to pay for an Xbox LIVE Gold subscription. Playing it on PC is free... but you can't play with people who play on Xbox. Fair enough, ty.
snpr1101 wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 04:27 iTzAnThRaX wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 03:13 reborn wrote on Sat, 12 March 2011 03:26 You're fucking awesome at the game to be fair... Thank you sir, I greatly appreciate this feedback. I just went 79-1 today! Set my highest KD ever! So do you think this game is worth getting on PC? My mates want to play on Xbox live...but I don't own a 360, and not prepared to go out and buy one. Just as good on PC? I pref FPS games w/ mouse and keyboard. Controllers are...meh. I mean obviously all the PC fanboys are going to tell you how "ITS SO MUCH EASIER TO AIM ON PC + DEDICATED SERVERS" .. but I'd much rather own it on xbox, I love that I never have to worry about cheaters .. and everyone has the same exact setup so it's an equal playing field .. (I know some nerd will post here saying you can use a mouse and keyboard on xbox but that peripheral actually lags to the point where its hard to use from what I've read about it .. it's the same as moving your stick, its very hard to set it up to replicate a mouse and keyboard for people that desperate to cheat online) Xbox also has gamebattles if you ever get really good and want a competitive atmosphere .. you can play gamebattles on PC but there will never be as many people. I love xbox over PC because I can play with my mates .. I don't know about you but none of my friends own a PC that's even fast enough to play modern day games .. and if they do it would be their school laptop which they wouldn't play games on anyways .. My mates aren't going to get a nice ass PC to play computer games with me so I'd rather just get it on xbox and play with them. (Even though all my real life friends are terrible at video games .. sigh)
Competitive FPS will always be the domain of the PC.
Dover wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 16:36 Competitive FPS will always be the domain of the PC. Nope. Not since Halo came to the scene. I mean, Counterstrike and a few others still remain, but meh... Call of Gears: Reach is taking over the scene, and you know it. Though to be fair, those games only last about a year or 6 months before they burn out (While CS still has a fairly large playerbase last I checked). Still, most people in GENERAL are moving away from PC FPS's. They're starting to go the way of fighting games, really. And honestly, I'm fucking okay with it. If it means a return to FPS's core roots of being horror/atmospheric, I am very much okay with this. FPS games have such a broad variety, and if it means consoles just get a slew of shitty HURPA DURPA 0.01 REACTION TIME 99-0 K/D, it'll hopefully keep the crap out of PC gaming.
CS 1.6 and css regularly get 80,000+ players online at a time each.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 17:04 Dover wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 16:36 Competitive FPS will always be the domain of the PC. Nope. Not since Halo came to the scene. I mean, Counterstrike and a few others still remain, but meh... Call of Gears: Reach is taking over the scene, and you know it. Though to be fair, those games only last about a year or 6 months before they burn out (While CS still has a fairly large playerbase last I checked). Still, most people in GENERAL are moving away from PC FPS's. They're starting to go the way of fighting games, really. And honestly, I'm fucking okay with it. If it means a return to FPS's core roots of being horror/atmospheric, I am very much okay with this. FPS games have such a broad variety, and if it means consoles just get a slew of shitty HURPA DURPA 0.01 REACTION TIME 99-0 K/D, it'll hopefully keep the crap out of PC gaming. I said competitive FPS. If we were judging the quality of a game by the size of it's player-base, then Farmville is the most competitive FPS out right now. Halo dumps it's playerbase every time a new shitty installment rolls onto the scene. Same thing with Call Of Duty, which has been shit since CoD2 and never really good since CoD 1 (On the PC). Even casual FPSes like Left 4 Dead or Team Fortress 2 play thousands of times better on the PC than they do on the console. It's a shame that Games for Windows LIVE and Xbox LIVE don't allow cross-platform play. Although there's probably a good reason for it, since it would end in tears and broken controllers for xbox owners. (Actually, there was one game, ShadowRun, that did allow this, except with aim assistance and other handicaps for console players. Pathetic.) The competative scene will always favor whatever platform allows the best to play at their best unhindered. That's why Anthrax plays xbox "To play with his mates" and minimizes things like dedicated servers and a non-retarded control scheme. People like him have forgotten what competative FPSes are all about. It's not supposed to be the slow-as-molasses gameplay (low-gravity, ton-of-HP, snails pace movement) that games like Halo have to shovel out to compensate for their shitty control scheme. It should be fast and furious, a place that tests your skill, aim, reaction time, and decision making, with nothing getting in the way of a player except the opposing player. These things will never happen on a console. Not unless they dump their current shitty control scheme in favor of a proper keyboard/mouse. But that'll never happen because all the 13 year olds would cry. Until then, console FPSes will continue being the same way they are. It's like trying to run a 100m dash in clogs. I can't believe this is even a discussion. Have you ever seen a "competitive" gears of war match? It's the dumbest thing in the world. It's like watching CS teams play on aim_map except they can't aim so they just run at each other. I linked all those videos so we're on even footing when we talk about competition in FPS. Watch any of them, and imagine the horrible terrible things those players would do to even the best Halotard. Famous Quake pro Fatal1ty would sometimes play one-handed (forward bound to mouse 2, jump bound to mouse 3) and still win against the average PC player. Imagine what he'd do to someone using thumbsticks.
Believe me when I say I agree completely- the console FPS crowd who thinks their games are anything remotely comparative to titles like Quake and CounterStrike and such are absolutely braindead. But the fact is, there hasn't been a new game that's come out in the past 5 years or so that is a competitive FPS. Furthermore, the majority of games that play competitively, have been for consoles (Again, Cowwa Doody, etc). A lot more people (namely, younger teens) believe console FPS's are "better" than PC FPS's. Again, CS is pretty strong... but for how long? It all feels like the fighting game scene- used to be all about skill and reaction time and kicking ass in the arcade scene, then a ton of easy to play casual console games come along, and the majority of gamers flock to them, only to abandon them after a few years. And eventually, the old arcade players die off. As much as I hate it, it's an unfortunate truth. Competitive PC FPS's are going to very likely die off.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Sun, 13 March 2011 06:13 reborn wrote on Sat, 12 March 2011 03:26 You're fucking awesome at the game to be fair... Thank you sir, I greatly appreciate this feedback. I just went 79-1 today! Set my highest KD ever! You have no doubt heard of zzirGrizz, but for those that haven't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7oPB9n1UlM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q-XiBhhqG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng9AAeSdYOY
To be fair though zzirGrizz is only an average player at best, he spends most of his time running around trying to do crazy ass shots and shit. Just a dude that plays way too much and occasionally does cool shit to throw in a montage.
I think he's pretty good to be honest. Put that aside though, whether we agree or dissagree about his ability is irrelevant... Look at his view count and subs... If you want youtube popularity (and a sponsor) then he must be doing something right. Look at ONLYUSEmeBlade, I think he's pretty awesome, but even if you think he's just average, he has a strong following.
If an FPS is a multi-platform release is available on both consoles and PCs it is better on PC. But FPS games developed specifically on a console can do well in their own right. Games like Halo and GoldenEye 007 (N64) are a good example of that. Halo is by far the most competitive FPS game I've ever played. CoD would be second.
lol fuck onlyusemeblade .. that guy is the biggest mean lady in all of youtube commentaries .. can't stand him. of all the dudes i've watched i'd probably say Hutch is my favorite .. just because he's not a huge tool bag that camps all game and thinks he's good.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 09:46 If an FPS is a multi-platform release is available on both consoles and PCs it is better on PC. But FPS games developed specifically on a console can do well in their own right. Games like Halo and GoldenEye 007 (N64) are a good example of that. Halo is by far the most competitive FPS game I've ever played. CoD would be second. If by "do well", you mean sales, then yeah you're right. But I'm unconcerned with that. If you mean anything else, you're probably wrong. If GoldenEye was ever released for the PC, and I was allowed to play against you on your N64, I would beat you so hard that you would think you were an unwanted stepchild. GoldenEye was a lot of fun, but it was also the epitome of bad console shooter control scheme (By today's standards). It just sort of got off easy because there wasn't anything to compare it to at the time, and because a legion of N64 players look back on it with a metric ton of nostalgia. Saying Halo is by far the most competitive FPS you've played gives me a great idea what your shitty gaming habits are. I'll tell you what, Quake 3 Arena is available on Steam. Go buy it and I'll show you what real competitive FPS is about. You might have a hard time since the game moves at a brisk pace and your aim and reflexes actually matter, but through the ass-kicking you'll receive, you'll come to a realization: Halo sucks.
Halo is a blast to play, but it is nowhere near as competitive as other titles can be. As for console vs PC, you can't say PC is automatically better because of the mouse, or whatever you might have been referring to. Sure, PC is my favorite platform, but whether or not it's better is simply an opinion.
Altzan wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 22:12 Halo is a blast to play, but it is nowhere near as competitive as other titles can be. As for console vs PC, you can't say PC is automatically better because of the mouse, or whatever you might have been referring to. Sure, PC is my favorite platform, but whether or not it's better is simply an opinion. A console FPS is only better than a PC FPS if there is no PC version available. Any time else, the PC interface trumps a controller anytime. Try using a gamepad in a PC FPS and you will find yourself outmatched. Dover wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 20:40 If by "do well", you mean sales, then yeah you're right. But I'm unconcerned with that. If you mean anything else, you're probably wrong. If GoldenEye was ever released for the PC, and I was allowed to play against you on your N64, I would beat you so hard that you would think you were an unwanted stepchild. GoldenEye was a lot of fun, but it was also the epitome of bad console shooter control scheme (By today's standards). It just sort of got off easy because there wasn't anything to compare it to at the time, and because a legion of N64 players look back on it with a metric ton of nostalgia. Saying Halo is by far the most competitive FPS you've played gives me a great idea what your shitty gaming habits are. I'll tell you what, Quake 3 Arena is available on Steam. Go buy it and I'll show you what real competitive FPS is about. You might have a hard time since the game moves at a brisk pace and your aim and reflexes actually matter, but through the ass-kicking you'll receive, you'll come to a realization: Halo sucks. Do well in sales, sure. But I'm more focusing on the quality of the game itself. There is no PC involved in their development (except for Halo's PC ports which are after the fact so they do not apply). No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They are excellent games in their own right, within their respective time frames, of course. As for competitiveness, I have very fond memories of Halo... particularly Halo 2. I've never seen so much drama caused over a single game in my life. Halo 2 was an extreme source of anger and frustration. I'd play it with friends a lot and some times there would be fun, happy moments... but most of the time we where either yelling at each other or at the people we were playing with. And I'm not talking your average Xbox LIVE trashing that you hear every 12 year old spout... I mean squabbles over the tiniest details in weapon consumption and foot placement and jump timing. In fact, one of my friends grew such an inconsolable rage that his parents eventually banned him from playing it. If that is not competitive, then I do not know what is. Don't get me wrong though. I'm sure there are many other games that are competitive such as the game you mentioned. There really is no way to say which is more competitive. It's like comparing the competitiveness of baseball and hockey. People will like one over the other and therefore compete in that one as opposed to the other. There is no definitive better of the two. Just as their is no definitive competitive pinnacle of an FPS title.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 19:41 A console FPS is only better than a PC FPS if there is no PC version available. You're saying that a mouse interface being better than a gamepad interface is a fact and not an opinion? Why is that? R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 19:41 Any time else, the PC interface trumps a controller anytime. Try using a gamepad in a PC FPS and you will find yourself outmatched. Playing a game on a console made for a console, and playing a game on a PC with a gamepad are two different things. Mouse and keyboard allow for more precise aim, usually. But that doesn't mean PC is always better no matter what. Some games just play better with a gamepad or joystick than a mouse+keyboard layout.
Altzan wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:03 You're saying that a mouse interface being better than a gamepad interface is a fact and not an opinion? Why is that? No it isn't a fact that it's better. But it is a fact that controllers aren't as precise and also do not account for as many functions as a keyboard can. With a mouse/keyboard setup you can have more functions than you can with button layouts on a controller. It also takes a higher level of skill to aim with a mouse than with auto-aim and a joystick. However, this does not change what I said earlier. If an FPS is made specifically for a console it therefore demands a controller for an interface. A mouse and keyboard would make the controls more precise, but they wouldn't extend the already adapted console style gameplay. This brings me back to what I was saying about multi-platform releases. Altzan wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 00:03 Playing a game on a console made for a console, and playing a game on a PC with a gamepad are two different things. Mouse and keyboard allow for more precise aim, usually. But that doesn't mean PC is always better no matter what. Some games just play better with a gamepad or joystick than a mouse+keyboard layout. If a game is multi-platform with a console and a PC, then it therefore needs to work for both those systems without anything given or taken other than graphical effects. That's why such a game's PC release is weighed down by the limitations of the accompanying console systems. To put it another way, all the versions have to be and play the same. My point in saying this is that if they all have to play the same, those games can therefore not be better suited for a controller or a mouse/keyboard because they have to share gameplay. The most that will happen is that the console versions will get auto-aiming features. TL;DR: A mutli-platform FPS cannot have better gameplay with a controller because the gameplay must be shared with gameplay on the PC as well.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 19:41 Altzan wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 22:12 Halo is a blast to play, but it is nowhere near as competitive as other titles can be. As for console vs PC, you can't say PC is automatically better because of the mouse, or whatever you might have been referring to. Sure, PC is my favorite platform, but whether or not it's better is simply an opinion. A console FPS is only better than a PC FPS if there is no PC version available. Any time else, the PC interface trumps a controller anytime. Try using a gamepad in a PC FPS and you will find yourself outmatched. Dover wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 20:40 If by "do well", you mean sales, then yeah you're right. But I'm unconcerned with that. If you mean anything else, you're probably wrong. If GoldenEye was ever released for the PC, and I was allowed to play against you on your N64, I would beat you so hard that you would think you were an unwanted stepchild. GoldenEye was a lot of fun, but it was also the epitome of bad console shooter control scheme (By today's standards). It just sort of got off easy because there wasn't anything to compare it to at the time, and because a legion of N64 players look back on it with a metric ton of nostalgia. Saying Halo is by far the most competitive FPS you've played gives me a great idea what your shitty gaming habits are. I'll tell you what, Quake 3 Arena is available on Steam. Go buy it and I'll show you what real competitive FPS is about. You might have a hard time since the game moves at a brisk pace and your aim and reflexes actually matter, but through the ass-kicking you'll receive, you'll come to a realization: Halo sucks. Do well in sales, sure. But I'm more focusing on the quality of the game itself. There is no PC involved in their development (except for Halo's PC ports which are after the fact so they do not apply). No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They are excellent games in their own right, within their respective time frames, of course. As for competitiveness, I have very fond memories of Halo... particularly Halo 2. I've never seen so much drama caused over a single game in my life. Halo 2 was an extreme source of anger and frustration. I'd play it with friends a lot and some times there would be fun, happy moments... but most of the time we where either yelling at each other or at the people we were playing with. And I'm not talking your average Xbox LIVE trashing that you hear every 12 year old spout... I mean squabbles over the tiniest details in weapon consumption and foot placement and jump timing. In fact, one of my friends grew such an inconsolable rage that his parents eventually banned him from playing it. If that is not competitive, then I do not know what is. Don't get me wrong though. I'm sure there are many other games that are competitive such as the game you mentioned. There really is no way to say which is more competitive. It's like comparing the competitiveness of baseball and hockey. People will like one over the other and therefore compete in that one as opposed to the other. There is no definitive better of the two. Just as their is no definitive competitive pinnacle of an FPS title. If getting emotional over games like that does it for you; then you aren't playing them for the right reason. Just buy some Estrogen tablets, hire out the notebook and sit your little self down with a box of tissues and have a great time.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 18:31 lol fuck onlyusemeblade .. that guy is the biggest mean lady in all of youtube commentaries .. can't stand him. of all the dudes i've watched i'd probably say Hutch is my favorite .. just because he's not a huge tool bag that camps all game and thinks he's good. All these people offer unique or extreme stuff, something different, normally. Hutch and machima did that 24hour round the clock thing streamed live to get to max prestige (or something like that anyway), which pulled in lots of viewers, and they've done loads fo other stuff too that was fairly unique to black-ops. If you really want youtube fame for black-ops, then you're going to have to add some crazy/unique/extreme/funny shit. You know this is true because you titled the thread knowing that it would pull in viewers.
First person shooters don't belong to consoles.
Sir Kane wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 14:17 First person shooters don't belong to consoles. Fact. Shooters have been dumbed down ever since they gained popularity on consoles. The most obnoxious fact of this is that consoles in the pre-Xbox era did not have the possibility to patch, install and all that, so they indeed had an advantage over the PC, but nowadays you even need to download and install patches for games.
O hey I got a I killstreak of 10 so I get picked up by a chopper so I can literally SPRAY everybody to death in the server once more.. Wait what? You are already doing well and you also get extra tools to do even better? Thats kinda retarded if you ask me. The video looks nice though, how did you record this?
I didn't personally record it but my friend recorded with an Huappuage HD PVR. Records anything on your TV in HD.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 19:41 As for competitiveness, I have very fond memories of Halo... particularly Halo 2. I've never seen so much drama caused over a single game in my life. Halo 2 was an extreme source of anger and frustration. I'd play it with friends a lot and some times there would be fun, happy moments... but most of the time we where either yelling at each other or at the people we were playing with. And I'm not talking your average Xbox LIVE trashing that you hear every 12 year old spout... I mean squabbles over the tiniest details in weapon consumption and foot placement and jump timing. In fact, one of my friends grew such an inconsolable rage that his parents eventually banned him from playing it. If that is not competitive, then I do not know what is. That is not competitive, and you do indeed not seem to know what is. Quote: There really is no way to say which is more competitive. It's like comparing the competitiveness of baseball and hockey. No its not. fuck off. Quote: There is no definitive better of the two. Just as their is no definitive competitive pinnacle of an FPS title.[/color] Yes there is.
SeL wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 16:12 O hey I got a I killstreak of 10 so I get picked up by a chopper so I can literally SPRAY everybody to death in the server once more.. Wait what? You are already doing well and you also get extra tools to do even better? Thats kinda retarded if you ask me. The video looks nice though, how did you record this?
You guys should try playing video games sometime.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 14 March 2011 19:41 There really is no way to say which is more competitive. It's like comparing the competitiveness of baseball and hockey. It's actually more like comparing the competitiveness of checkers or tic tac toe (Call of Duty) with Chess (Counter-Strike). or better yet, comparing the competitiveness of MLB (Quake) with middle school girl's underhand slow pitch church league softball (Halo). nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 18:32 You guys should try playing video games sometime. Let's play some Quake, Nikki. :]
for fps games a mouse rapes a controller you can keep saying over and over that it doesn't because you don't want it to be true, but it is they gave up on trying to make pc vs. consoles possible because of it you can always buy a nerd steering wheel for the pc like Homey did for a racing game, and then do the 3-monitors thing and see out the side windows of your car idk if you can do that on a console
grant89uk wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 02:06 SeL wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 16:12 O hey I got a I killstreak of 10 so I get picked up by a chopper so I can literally SPRAY everybody to death in the server once more.. Wait what? You are already doing well and you also get extra tools to do even better? Thats kinda retarded if you ask me. The video looks nice though, how did you record this? The only reason you should get better by getting more kills is because you collect better weapons, which you again lose once you get killed. /me is UT classic fan, even today. Why aren't there more games like this? High-speed, nice amounts of weapons which all have obviously different handling. Not like CoD or BC2, where the difference is rather subtle in things like RoF and accuracy.
double post, I DON'T CARE
I love how absolutely biased those screenshots are. Xbox costs 200 bucks and plays every game out on it .. a nice PC costs 1000 bucks and must be upgraded with every new game that comes out .. plus with an xbox I can play with real life friends, though with some of you guys I'm sure that's not much of a concern.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 07:15 I love how absolutely biased those screenshots are. Xbox costs 200 bucks and plays every game out on it .. a nice PC costs 1000 bucks and must be upgraded with every new game that comes out .. plus with an xbox I can play with real life friends, though with some of you guys I'm sure that's not much of a concern. Real life friends! Oh boy! What are they like? Please, do tell. When you're sitting next to your real life buddy, is it just like the movies? Two kindred spirits accompanied by the faint harmonic tapping of controllers that echo like song whilst being enthralled on an inferior gaming platform. I may not have an xbox, and I may not have real life buddies, but I'll tell you one thing - I can dream sir; I can dream. Apologies, boredom gets the best of me.
I don't get it, did you read my post and go "hey, I have no friends .. this must be directed at me!" or are you just trying to troll me to gain some e-cred? Either way, congrats on proving my point.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 10:15 Xbox costs 200 bucks and plays every game out on it .. a nice PC costs 1000 bucks and must be upgraded with every new game that comes out This is one thing I absolutely agree with. Every Xbox 360 or PS3 game are going to run as designed on anyone's Xbox 360 or PS3. Buy a console and be good for years, or get a PC and have to update the graphics card/Ram/CPU every 18 months. However having played COD on both, I prefer it on PC, those controls feel more comfortable to me, and that is why it's personal preference on what you choose to play.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Fri, 11 March 2011 21:57 lmfao i just put hilarious in the title so you guys would click it and yeah i won't be monotone next time i wanted to see how people reacted to that robot voice style of talking. | | V
Dover wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 00:29 It's actually more like comparing the competitiveness of checkers or tic tac toe (Call of Duty) with Chess (Counter-Strike). or better yet, comparing the competitiveness of MLB (Quake) with middle school girl's underhand slow pitch church league softball (Halo). WHAT is compared is not the point. My point is that you can compare them and never have one be better than the other because different people have different tastes. If you're talking about one person, then they can say what they like better and what they tend to compete more in. That's easy. But when talking about a group of people, it's harder to determine.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 13:19 Dover wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 00:29 It's actually more like comparing the competitiveness of checkers or tic tac toe (Call of Duty) with Chess (Counter-Strike). or better yet, comparing the competitiveness of MLB (Quake) with middle school girl's underhand slow pitch church league softball (Halo). WHAT is compared is not the point. My point is that you can compare them and never have one be better than the other because different people have different tastes. If you're talking about one person, then they can say what they like better and what they tend to compete more in. That's easy. But when talking about a group of people, it's harder to determine. You're missing my point. If somebody said that they played competitive tic tac toe, and they weren't trying to be funny, I'd immediately know they were an idiot. They might have different tastes, sure, but that just makes them an idiot with different tastes. "Taste" here is irrelevant. Some people like being kicked in the nuts for fun, but that doesn't make that a legitimate means of entertainment, and it certainly doesn't make it a competitive sport.
Dover wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 21:29 nikki6ixx wrote on Tue, 15 March 2011 18:32 You guys should try playing video games sometime. Let's play some Quake, Nikki. :] I would, but SegaNet is no more, so I can't play against you with my Dreamcast. This thread got dumb anyways. I don't know why people care so much about how a game plays. It's a fucking game, that's made to be enjoyed, not to be debated incessantly by nerds that have a hate-on for either consoles or PC's.
I have a ps3 and the only FPS game I have for it is resistance fall of man. Id refuse to buy fps games on consoles because simply put PC is better for that kind of game. Keep consoles for platformers/sports etc.
nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 17:44 Dreamcast. FUCK YEAH, DREAMCAST
Dover wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 20:29 ... Some people like being kicked in the nuts for fun, but that doesn't make that a legitimate means of entertainment, and it certainly doesn't make it a competitive sport. Not unless you're the one doing the nut-kicking. :V But seriously, I get what you're saying. Tic-tac-toe might be a bad example though, but I get what you're saying. It be like comparing a spitting contest to an Olympic game. However a multiplayer video game being compared to another multiplayer video game does not have that difference between them. They are both games in which multiple people play and compete in to a similar degree. Any FPS with a multiplayer component and a ranking system is on the same playing field regardless of how they play. It isn't like comparing Angry Birds to Unreal Tournament where the level of competitiveness is obviously different. But I do suppose you could count the player bases for each game to determine how competitive it is. A game that has a longer list of competitors on an active ranking ladder would most likely be considered a more competitive game.
nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 17:44 I would, but SegaNet is no more, so I can't play against you with my Dreamcast. Steam? or http://www.quakelive.com/. nikki6ixx wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 17:44 This thread got dumb anyways. I don't know why people care so much about how a game plays. It's a fucking game, that's made to be enjoyed, not to be debated incessantly by nerds that have a hate-on for either consoles or PC's. It started out pretty dumb. For all intents and purposes, I improved it.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Wed, 16 March 2011 15:15 I love how absolutely biased those screenshots are. Xbox costs 200 bucks and plays every game out on it .. a nice PC costs 1000 bucks and must be upgraded with every new game that comes out .. plus with an xbox I can play with real life friends, though with some of you guys I'm sure that's not much of a concern. I love it how Console freaks forget about the Tv you need to go with it and how you can use your PC for other useful things as well, unlike your Xbox or PS3. Another thing they forget is that the console was a lot more expensive when it came out. If you would've bought a console + TV you would've spend (a lot) more money than you would on a decent PC. A decent PC doesn't have to cost you a lot either, for say 800 Euros I can build a gaming rig which would be considered high-end. Not only I would have a gaming rig, I would also be able to answer my e-mail, go on YouTube and a whole lot more. Funny how console freaks don't know about one of the most awesome things ever, being LAN-parties. They are extremely fun and you know what, you're playing against friends IRL.
I paid $1000 for a computer 2 years ago (custom built by me). It shits on fucking everything, still. Plays Crysis 2 demo max'd NP Prob still really good for at least another 2 years, and I get to do all my coding/porn watching/movie & music downloading/email/taxes/whatever you throw at me as well. Fuck off console fags with your "ooooh social gaming" arguments. You're all faggots. People hardly play video games unless they're still in their teens or total losers anyway (how can a university student with a social life afford to waste a significant amount of time on gaming? beats me. your argument is invalid) case in point: pc > fagbox and PSgay and i wont even get started on the nintendo wee-wee
bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 06:24 I paid $1000 for a computer 2 years ago (custom built by me). It shits on fucking everything, still. Plays Crysis 2 demo max'd NP Prob still really good for at least another 2 years, and I get to do all my coding/porn watching/movie & music downloading/email/taxes/whatever you throw at me as well. Fuck off console fags with your "ooooh social gaming" arguments. You're all faggots. People hardly play video games unless they're still in their teens or total losers anyway (how can a university student with a social life afford to waste a significant amount of time on gaming? beats me. your argument is invalid) case in point: pc > fagbox and PSgay and i wont even get started on the nintendo wee-wee You and EvilWhiteDragon are so dumb lol, a gaming console is made for GAMING .. a PC is by design supposed to do more stuff, so yeah you get what you pay for .. I mean xbox can stream video from PC, play music from a USB drive or iPod ... if you mod it with a JTAG it basically is a PC .. so if you want to get really technical xbox = PC ...also the TV arguement doesn't make any sense to me .. who doesn't already have a TV before they buy an xbox or PC? Are you telling me that you don't own a TV in your house? I can't think of one person on earth that would own a PC with highspeed internet for online gaming and not own a TV .. but whatever you're obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel LOL. Not like a monitor for a PC doesn't cost like the same as a TV anyways .. lol boomer no offense but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about on that social aspect either .. only total losers and teens play video games? sorry but you've always seemed like a total loser to me and you own every console and PC .. you used to always brag about it .. and plus you've always been terrible at every game you've ever played. If you go to any university or college and walk around the dorms almost every single room has some sort of xbox or PS3 visible from the hallway lol .. maybe canadians are just a lot cooler than americans or something? They just PC game and go to LAN parties which are much more fun and for cool people. Not to mention .. why are you guys derailing my topic so hard? It's funny you're getting all hot and bothered because I posted my gameplay from a console other than PC.
When I bought my ps3 I had to buy a new tv to go with it to experience the proper full hd effect. Basically cost me like £850 for the ps3 and tv. In comparison my computer which still runs everything on max settings basically only cost me £650 like over 2 years ago. I play significantly more games on my PC than PS3.
Fact remains that you can still have fun with a console. Screw the arguments, get what platform you prefer and enjoy it. Same with cars, sodas, gum, OS's, and hundreds more - get your preference.
grant89uk wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 08:31 When I bought my ps3 I had to buy a new tv to go with it to experience the proper full hd effect. Basically cost me like £850 for the ps3 and tv. In comparison my computer which still runs everything on max settings basically only cost me £650 like over 2 years ago. I play significantly more games on my PC than PS3. Cool story bro? Don't know why you keep posting shit that's directly related to you, can you even make a sentence without an "I" statement? No one forced you to buy a new TV .. you can hook xbox or PS3 up to any TV .. even those pocket ones that cost 45 dollars .. lets see you buy a monitor for that price. It's all preference so TV isn't really even part of the arguement.
bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 09:24 I paid $1000 for a computer 2 years ago (custom built by me). It shits on fucking everything, still. Plays Crysis 2 demo max'd NP Prob still really good for at least another 2 years, and I get to do all my coding/porn watching/movie & music downloading/email/taxes/whatever you throw at me as well. Fuck off console fags with your "ooooh social gaming" arguments. You're all faggots. People hardly play video games unless they're still in their teens or total losers anyway (how can a university student with a social life afford to waste a significant amount of time on gaming? beats me. your argument is invalid) case in point: pc > fagbox and PSgay and i wont even get started on the nintendo wee-wee My PC is in the same boat. Maybe a year older than yours... so I think it's just about on the verge of losing its edge.. maybe in about a year. I use it to play any high-end graphics game as well as FPS style games. However, I disagree with what you say about consoles. I find I enjoy more console games than I enjoy PC games. I have about 8 or 9 games on my PC but I only really play 2 or 3 of them regularly. I spend much more time playing games on my 360, my Wii or my DS.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 17:22 grant89uk wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 08:31 When I bought my ps3 I had to buy a new tv to go with it to experience the proper full hd effect. Basically cost me like £850 for the ps3 and tv. In comparison my computer which still runs everything on max settings basically only cost me £650 like over 2 years ago. I play significantly more games on my PC than PS3. Cool story bro? Don't know why you keep posting shit that's directly related to you, can you even make a sentence without an "I" statement? No one forced you to buy a new TV .. you can hook xbox or PS3 up to any TV .. even those pocket ones that cost 45 dollars .. lets see you buy a monitor for that price. It's all preference so TV isn't really even part of the arguement. Buying the new tv was a choice. A necessary choice though as I would not even pay the price of a console to have it output to some shitty monitor. Thats like hiring michelangelo to paint your house then asking for it to be plain white. The "I" is because I am stating my opinion which is all this argument is OPINIONS. I never slated people for playing consoles I am merely pointing out that its stupid to say the cost of a TV doesnt come into it when its a necessary piece of equipment. If you choose to play it on a shitty television then thats your problem. However if mummy and daddy paid for your television and xbox or whatever then I can see why you dont care.
why are you guys even arguing with him, he's clearly retarded
Herr Surth as you can see there are like twelve individual arguements going on, can you please verify who you're calling a retard? Troll post much.
Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS.
Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 13:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. no Also Quote: social gaming You can't even talk without a mic mid-game, and half the people who do talk with mics are 12 year old faggots. If a female starts talking, a shitstorm brews. So all you have left to "socialize" with are 18+ year old dudes who just want to play, and half of THEM don't even bother with a mic. Consoles are fucking terrible for social gaming. I've had more "social" time in many PC games than any console game.
Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 13:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. LOL
Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 21:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. Console fanboy right there I partially agree though. Some FPS's are purely made for console and need to be played on them or atleast with a controller (ie Halo 1/2 on PC). Though the PC wins by far for every other FPS not in that group so far imo.
Omar007 wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 16:20 Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 21:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. Console fanboy right there I partially agree though. Some FPS's are purely made for console and need to be played on them or atleast with a controller (ie Halo 1/2 on PC). Though the PC wins by far for every other FPS not in that group so far imo. I think Starbuzz was trying to make a sarcastic post from a console fanboy point of view when he actually only plays PC games .. he's just such a clown that no one knew what was going on.
I'm not gonna get in a 10 page argument with you anthrax (or anyone for that matter) cuz I like you, but wasnt I better than you at renegade? Not that it hurts if I wasn't or anything, i'm just sayan'. Anyway in my group of friends a couple have xbox's, so I've played with them in the past, whereas others have good PCs, so I've played with them as well. I guess it completely depends in your group's dynamics; but there's no denying that a console is just a really dumbed down computer and you're better off with a real PC. It's not fanboy business, it's fact. And there's no denying. Anyway to each his own. I'm drunk, happy st pattys bitches im spent
bmr_71 wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 19:43 I'm not gonna get in a 10 page argument with you anthrax (or anyone for that matter) cuz I like you, but wasnt I better than you at renegade? Not that it hurts if I wasn't or anything, i'm just sayan'. Anyway in my group of friends a couple have xbox's, so I've played with them in the past, whereas others have good PCs, so I've played with them as well. I guess it completely depends in your group's dynamics; but there's no denying that a console is just a really dumbed down computer and you're better off with a real PC. It's not fanboy business, it's fact. And there's no denying. Anyway to each his own. I'm drunk, happy st pattys bitches im spent boomer sux at reneagade
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 18:22 grant89uk wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 08:31 When I bought my ps3 I had to buy a new tv to go with it to experience the proper full hd effect. Basically cost me like £850 for the ps3 and tv. In comparison my computer which still runs everything on max settings basically only cost me £650 like over 2 years ago. I play significantly more games on my PC than PS3. Cool story bro? Don't know why you keep posting shit that's directly related to you, can you even make a sentence without an "I" statement? No one forced you to buy a new TV .. you can hook xbox or PS3 up to any TV .. even those pocket ones that cost 45 dollars .. lets see you buy a monitor for that price. It's all preference so TV isn't really even part of the arguement. You know you can connect a PC to more outputs than the default Xbox/PS3? Hell, the first versions of the Xbox didn't even have HDMI support... Your argument is invalid. Also, I don't have a TV. I got 2 monitors and 2 PC's (and not importantly, a laptop) and 1 TV card. Allows me to watch TV, but then again, what is on TV that's not on PC... Most TV shows are utter BS anyway. And to explain why you'd need to take the TV into account; If you don't you would also need to scrap chassis, monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse off the PC list, which means that you can upgrade every 7 to 10 years or so (compared to console graphics) for say 500 Euros. Probably less, but hey... A console at launch also costs 500 Euros, so they are the same price in store. Only big difference is that I can do pretty much anything with my PC, unlike you with your console can only do what MS and Sony intended you to do with it. Hell, with a PS3 you get an awesome extra-free rootkit and feature removal with it, now only for extra free and if you don't want to install the "update" you can't play games anymore! AWESOME! Sure sounds like a must buy to me. So basically you'd spend 500 Euros on your console and then another 200+ Euros on your computer. Wait, that makes the console effectively more expensive and you have a slower PC when you're actually doing work on it.
Omar007 wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 00:20 Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 21:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. Console fanboy right there I partially agree though. Some FPS's are purely made for console and need to be played on them or atleast with a controller (ie Halo 1/2 on PC). Though the PC wins by far for every other FPS not in that group so far imo. Hint: turn on your sarcasm detector Anyway, I agree that consoles can be fun, but I disagree that they're better than PC or more economical or w/e. In the end PC is certainly best for RTS and FPS.
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 11:28 Omar007 wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 00:20 Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 21:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. Console fanboy right there I partially agree though. Some FPS's are purely made for console and need to be played on them or atleast with a controller (ie Halo 1/2 on PC). Though the PC wins by far for every other FPS not in that group so far imo. Hint: turn on your sarcasm detector Anyway, I agree that consoles can be fun, but I disagree that they're better than PC or more economical or w/e. In the end PC is certainly best for RTS and FPS. I find sarcasm hard to detect in text when it's done good This smiley would atleast have helped
Omar007 wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 12:24 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 11:28 Omar007 wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 00:20 Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 21:21 Consoles are clearly better than PC's tbh for FPS gaming. You get fast, paced action without feeling like you are fucking swimming or walking on the Moon like in the PC. You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious. Consoles are the norm now for FPS and the new standard to judge FPS skill. STFU PC FANBOYS. Console fanboy right there I partially agree though. Some FPS's are purely made for console and need to be played on them or atleast with a controller (ie Halo 1/2 on PC). Though the PC wins by far for every other FPS not in that group so far imo. Hint: turn on your sarcasm detector Anyway, I agree that consoles can be fun, but I disagree that they're better than PC or more economical or w/e. In the end PC is certainly best for RTS and FPS. I find sarcasm hard to detect in text when it's done good This smiley would atleast have helped TBH, it was kinda hidden and took me a while as well, but here "You can also be a light soldier char with a AK-47 and still aim like you're in a turret: fast, smooth, and furious." I knew Starbuzz was kidding. Also because of it being Starbuzz .
EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 03:23 iTzAnThRaX wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 18:22 grant89uk wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 08:31 When I bought my ps3 I had to buy a new tv to go with it to experience the proper full hd effect. Basically cost me like £850 for the ps3 and tv. In comparison my computer which still runs everything on max settings basically only cost me £650 like over 2 years ago. I play significantly more games on my PC than PS3. Cool story bro? Don't know why you keep posting shit that's directly related to you, can you even make a sentence without an "I" statement? No one forced you to buy a new TV .. you can hook xbox or PS3 up to any TV .. even those pocket ones that cost 45 dollars .. lets see you buy a monitor for that price. It's all preference so TV isn't really even part of the arguement. You know you can connect a PC to more outputs than the default Xbox/PS3? I think you're pretty misinformed, an xbox can connect to HDMI, AV, or even to a monitor if you buy the adapter, you can also use a splitter and connect it to more than one monitor or TV if you wanted ..it's pretty much about equal as PC .. where are you pulling your facts from?
"pretty much about equal as PC" derp 1. get job 2. buy both 3. ?????? 4. profit! jews
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 09:48 I think you're pretty misinformed, an xbox can connect to HDMI, AV, or even to a monitor if you buy the adapter, you can also use a splitter and connect it to more than one monitor or TV if you wanted ..it's pretty much about equal as PC .. where are you pulling your facts from? He said "default outputs" meaning without the aid of extra hardware such as a splitter or an adaptor.
newcheese wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 11:07 "pretty much about equal as PC" derp 1. get job 2. buy both 3. ?????? 4. profit! jews idort
Fanboyism is really stupid for the whole ps3 vs xbox vs pc debate. A lot of what you choose is personal preference based on numerous factors. To say that console gaming isn't competitive, how so? I would definitely say on most games the average quality of players is shittier, but competition is relative. Both have their pros, both have their cons. To say something against the whole cost point of a PC, what has been said about computer pricing is no longer true. Thanks to the popularity of console gaming, graphics and increase in demand for more powerful and advanced hardware is greatly decreasing. This decrease in improvements is leading to an increase in the typical upgrade needs of a PC. It is quite possible that a $1000 PC will now last you 3-4 years to be playable, and perhaps only requiring a few hundred more along the line to extend that further. With that being said, and the current trend of new games being console ports which the modern pc just goes LOL SRSLY? at, getting 5 years out of a PC is nearly possible. What's the upgrade period of a console? 5-6 years? A new console costs say $400, all other costs aside let's just say it's an extra $800 per 5 years to have a decent PC. That additional cost might be a bit tricky, but it is doable, even if it's $1000 more expensive than a console, that's only $200 per year. Face it, with the xbox failure rate it's not even that large of a difference. Account in the expensive console game prices as opposed to wicked steam sales, the cost of owning a shitty pc just for your normal web browsing and what not....it's not much different in the end. The cost argument is a moot point, untrue and the defence of those who cannot afford the up front cost. Games that are designed for PC are obviously better on PC, as is the same for console games, they're not great on the PC. Anyway, it all really boils down to preference, cost included in that. Me personally I cannot stand using a joystick for FPS - it's stupid. Joysticks are great for racing, sports games, some console fps games and other random genres no one cares about. Buy what you want, play what you want, just don't be a doofus.
iTzAnThRaX wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 14:48 EvilWhiteDragon wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 03:23 iTzAnThRaX wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 18:22 grant89uk wrote on Thu, 17 March 2011 08:31 When I bought my ps3 I had to buy a new tv to go with it to experience the proper full hd effect. Basically cost me like £850 for the ps3 and tv. In comparison my computer which still runs everything on max settings basically only cost me £650 like over 2 years ago. I play significantly more games on my PC than PS3. Cool story bro? Don't know why you keep posting shit that's directly related to you, can you even make a sentence without an "I" statement? No one forced you to buy a new TV .. you can hook xbox or PS3 up to any TV .. even those pocket ones that cost 45 dollars .. lets see you buy a monitor for that price. It's all preference so TV isn't really even part of the arguement. You know you can connect a PC to more outputs than the default Xbox/PS3? I think you're pretty misinformed, an xbox can connect to HDMI, AV, or even to a monitor if you buy the adapter, you can also use a splitter and connect it to more than one monitor or TV if you wanted ..it's pretty much about equal as PC .. where are you pulling your facts from? I meant the FIRST XBOX360. You know, like the first revisions.... Also, show me dualscreen on the Xbox or PS3 without a splitter and/or without cloning the output... I have no problem connection up to 3 monitors to my PC, and with different output on each screen. Without a lot of problems I could increase this up to 9 or even 12.
Homey wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 23:57 Fanboyism is really stupid for the whole ps3 vs xbox vs pc debate. Agreed, Wii is superior. I pretty much agree with everything you said, though. PC costs are a moot point, especially if you build one yourself.
Worry not, Crysis 2 is being released on the upcoming tuesday! That game's MP is good fun.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 08:22 Homey wrote on Fri, 18 March 2011 23:57 Fanboyism is really stupid for the whole ps3 vs xbox vs pc debate. Agreed, Wii is superior. I pretty much agree with everything you said, though. PC costs are a moot point, especially if you build one yourself. LOL yes. Also throwing your Wii remote into your brand new LCD and breaking it is fun. I don't personally find the Wii on the same level as the other 3 systems...it's not the same and is in its own unique market. Didn't see your black post til I quoted it. Yeah I base the whole PC cost thing off of custom builds. If you're buying through a company it won't be true. Half the fun of PC gaming is building your own rig.