There's a bit of an argument going on (again) over at Lifehacker about the superiority of PCs over consoles and vice-versa. Making the case for the PC, Whitston
Gordon argues that they keyboard and mouse are "better" controllers
than any other, that PCs have a higher graphics potential, that PCs are
more flexible and upgradable, that PC games can be modded, and that the
PC cost issue is a myth. Making the case for consoles,
Thorin Klosowski argues that consoles work "out of the box" every time,
that consoles are more comfortable to play on, that controllers are
better than keyboard and mouse, and that consoles get exclusive games.
Both of their arguments are valid, and I'll explain why in a bit, but my
issue of contention is that these two articles seem to be working in a
vacuum. Rather than working as a true series where one responds to the
other, they come across as two distinct and isolated "here's my list"
pieces. And so, in the spirit of figuring out what is better, PC gaming
or console gaming, let us tackle each of the points presented in both
pieces.
The easiest issue to tackle, I think, is that of the controller. Both Gordon and Klosowski make valid points about the superiority of their chosen control schema, and both are correct. It is unquestionable that a mouse an keyboard are superior to controllers when it comes to precision and versatility. Indeed, when playing any fast-paced shooting game, players will benefit from the ability of mapping movement and action keys to a QWERTY keyboard while letting the mouse do all the looking, weapon changing, and shooting. On a mouse and keyboard setup, players are able to effortlessly run in any direction while jumping, shooting, looking around with high levels of accuracy and speed at a 360 degree angle, and changing weapons, while in a console the best one can hope for with a controller. Indeed, as Gordon writes, one is inclined to accept his poorly worded statement that "Can you imagine a game where PC gamers were allowed to play against console gamers? It'd be a slaughter, all thanks to the mouse and keyboard." with nods and acknowledgements. The same is true when playing RTS titles such as, say, Starcraft II, or maybe even top-down dungeon grinders such as Diablo III. When playing an RTS with mouse and keyboard, players can hotkey almost endless actions to any number of keys and use the mouse to quickly move the cursor from one place to another, which is incredibly helpful when making split-second decisions. All of these benefits are only amplified when players use gaming-specific peripherals such as the Razer Orbweaver and the Ourboros. However, the keyboard and mouse setup doesn't entirely take all the medals. When playing platform games, controllers are far superior to keyboard and mice.
When playing fighting games, game pads and joysticks are far superior to keyboards and mice. Because of the way that control schemes for games such as your favorite version of Street Fighter 4, Injustice: Gods Among Us, or the latest Sould Calibur, people playing these games with keyboard and mice might as well be playing them with a DDR pad. The same is true of platform games. The type of precision afforded by mice and keyboard for FPS games does not translate well to games such as Guacamelee, Great Giana Sisters, Limbo, Braid, or Super Meat Boy. In fact, when one thinks about most gaming genres - sports, racing, rpgs, action, adventure, beat-em-up, maze, bullet hells... in almost every single case some form of controller wins over the keyboard. Yes, keyboard and mice are better for FPS games, RTS games, and games specifically built to be used with mice and keyboard (old-school point and click and CRPGs, for example), but for almost everything else the joystick takes the cake. And yes, games like Skyrim and Fallout III are FPS games, which SHOULD make them play better with a keyboard and mouse - no doubt if they were multiplayer battle games I would rather use a keyboard and mouse in PVP events - but because of the way in which they are designed and the pacing of the battles, the "edge" that a player might get from using a keyboard and mouse on Skyrim is barely noticeable, and when doing so players give up the unquestionably more comfortable play provided by joysticks and controllers.
So, which is better? Controllers or keyboards? Well... it depends on the type of game one is playing, really.
"But hey", I hear the astute reader say, "you can plug in a controller to the computer!" That is absolutely true. With some effort, I can plug in an X Box 360 controller into any Windows computer and most games will already provide pre-mapped set-ups to use which can be easily modified. However, it is true that not all controllers are compatible with all games (I quit most action-driven MMOs because I couldn't get my Logitech to work with them). And yes, there are programs like JoyToKey where users can simply make it so that a game maps keys to the keyboard and then the user re-maps them through the third party program to the keyboard. I could also just create my own script to do this if I really wanted to. I could also connect a keyboard and mice to the 360 if I really wanted to. The options are there. But the question is "which is better, the keyboard and mouse setup, or the controller setup", not "how many ways can you make it so that PC games control like console games". And the answer to the question at hand, really, varies from person to person. As someone who doesn't play multiplayer FPS games too often, I favor the joystick. Others may favor the keyboard and mice, and that's fine.
The question of upgrade is one that is greatly misunderstood both by console and PC gamers alike. On the console gaming side, there are people making the argument that consoles are "better" because they just need to buy one every console cycle and it comes ready to play out of the box. Their 400$ console (or if they are like me they wait for the price drop and buy it for $200 - $300) plugs into their 32 inch Funai TV that they bought on Walmart for $100.00 on Black Friday and they're good to go for another 8 years. Meanwhile, the PC side of the argument states that when a part for a PC needs to be upgraded, PC owners can just buy a new part and install it.
Both sides are correct.
If *I* want to upgrade a computer, all I need to do is run a Google search on compatible parts, buy the parts that I like, and install them. *I* have been tinkering with computers since 1998. *I* built my first system from scratch when I was 19. Note that this was when basic computers cost over $1,000 and "cheap" video cards cost over $300. I have since replaced several computer parts, recently even taking over 45 defunct computer systems for my university and building 22 Frankenstein systems for a technical writing lab. For *ME*, upgrading a computer is easy. However, not everyone is willing or has the knowledge to do any of these things:
The truth is that for most people, the simple act of opening a computer is something magical and mystifying. This is true for people of all ages. To most people, the kind of stuff happening in this video is highly specialized and requires a lot of technical knowledge (and yes, it does) and most of the language spoken there might as well be Japanese. To most people, "if you have two sticks of DDR 3 1066 and one has faster timing than the other one that memory stick will be faster" might as well be nothing. And so, for most people "upgrading a computer", at least by themselves, is out of the question. Yes, they could bring it to a shop, take it to an expert, or call the family tech support guy (in my family it happens to be me, for some reason), but this still involves work - a lot of work. Updating a console is as simple as (1) take the old console down, (2) put the new console up. Updating a computer is more often an issue of (1) doing research, (2) getting the right parts, (3) installing the right parts, (4) installing the drivers, and (5) configuring the parts. In some cases additional software may be required. Most non technology enthusiasts I have met, however, "upgrade" their computers by simply buying a new computer, just as they would a console.
And so, as far as EASE of upgrade, consoles take the cake. As far as the ABILITY to be upgraded, computers unquestionably have the upper hand, as a computer is, by nature, fully customizable while game consoles at best allow users to change hard drives.
And yes, I know, console gamers are "lazy", they don't want to spend time and effort on upgrading their systems, etc. That is, once again, not the question. The questions are "which is more upgradable"and "which is easier to upgrade", and the answers to those have already been stated.
Better Visuals
PCs have better visuals, or at least better potential for visuals. Unless they don't. Consoles are fairly static. Every console is the same. PCs are not. Consider the video below:
That video features a side by side comparison of Battlefield 4 running on the PS 4 (which devs have said is the equivalent of high settings) against a PC running on highest settings. Clearly, the PC version looks better. And my computer could run it at 55 - 60 frames per second. My computer is a 3rd generation quad core i7 running at 2.40 mhz, 16 gigs of ram, and a dedicated NVidia GTX 680. My wife's computer... not so much. Hers has enough power to run the game on low specs at 30 frames per second... maybe. Her i3 with 4 gigs of ram and a GT580 CAN play games, but it can't compare to the newer consoles.
Below a comparison on the Battlefield settings:
And so, the answer to the question of "which looks better" really depends on the individual PC. Computers have potential for better visuals, but not all of them can produce the better visuals.
I know, I know, you can build "a gaming rig with less than $500 that can run everything on ultra at 200 frames per second on 4k resolution". Let's hold off on that for a bit and talk instead about something where the PC will win every time regardless of computer. That is mods.
Game Versatility
There is no question that PC games offer more play variety than their console counterparts. Let us consider Skyrim as a case. Console games can buy Skyrim's Legendary Edition, and go on to explore the world of Skyrim. If they are inclined to do so, they can explore the Dawnguard expansion set, as well as whatever other DLC it includes. Meanwhile, a PC gamer can do the same, but with the added benefit of having content created by the modding community at their disposal. If they are inclined to do so, they can install full extensions such as Falskaar, a mod that is at times more interesting than the core game itself:
Or they could mod the game to create nearly unimaginable things such as a Pony Skyrim... thing.
You may want to mute the audio on that video.
And so, unquestionably, when it comes to game modification, the edge goes to the PC.
However, on the other hand....
Exclusives
Consoles DO get better exclusive games.
Yes, I understand, PCs have MORE exclusives than consoles. PCs have World of Warcraft, a great fantasy MMORPG, and a hundred clones. PCs also get all the Free To Play games like Blacklight Retribution, Lord of the Rings Online, League of Legends, and DC Universe Online, to name a few. Just going to the Perfect World or Aria Games websites will yield dozens of free to play games. They are all fun, but they are all repetitive in the sense that they are just like every other game in its genre. Once players have tried World of Warcraft, they can ignore Fiesta Online, Grand Fantasia, Eternal Eden, AION Online, Guild Wars, heck, even sci-fi titles with the same core play such as RF Online. Once players have tried League of Legends, they can ignore the other MOBAs. Once they have played one broken free to play online only shooter, they have played all of them. The changes in the free to play arena are minor and mostly aesthetic. Which moves us to the non free-to-play PC exclusives.
PCs have had a solid year in 2013. Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs came out this year, and while it's in my queue of to play games, if it's half as intriguing as the first, it's bound to be great. PC gamers also got great stuff such as Antichamber and Don't Starve. They got a Rome: Total War title. Overall, PC gamers got quite a few titles to be happy about.
However, PCs didn't get Grand Theft Auto 5. PCs didn't get The Last of Us. PCs didn't get Ni No Kuni. PCs didn't get anything that says "Mario", "Zelda", "Metroid", or "Pokemon" in the title. PCs didn't get anything with the Atlus logo in the corner. If we go a bit back in time, PCs didn't get Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon. PCs didn't get the Uncharted games or the Gears of War games.
And yes, I understand that many apologists will say that the most played PC games are things like WoW and LoL. They are right. However, the huge number of "I wish
So, in the end, while the PC has more versatile and moddable games AND more exclusive, consoles have much better exclusives.
This brings us to the last issue: pricing.
However, for a discussion on pricing and on how everything fits together, stay tuned for part two.
No comments:
Post a Comment