What are your views on the P$3?

[Tricky]

Yup playing a shooter on a console is like trying to take a p*ss with boxing gloves on (including unzipping fly) Consoles have their place for gamers with shorter attention spans & a penchant for quick fix arcade style gaming, but the PC still is & always has been the place for real gamers!you dont get any decent RTS or simulator games on consoles,such as blitzkrieg, sudden strike, the total war series, silent hunter, op flashpoint (ok that came out on console about 6 years after the PC version), company of heroes, tiger vs T34 etc ,or if they do then they are watered down,simplified & the quality of the graphics reduced (ive seen far cry 2 on the PC & 360,on the surface they look the same,but the 360 version has had a lot of the little details removed)

[MinionZombie]

Little details removed? Explain dear Sir, I've been meaning to get around to FC2 at some point (perhaps a bit further down the line, what with me still needing to catch up on several other more important titles) ... so, what are the differences?

[bassman]

I don't really know much about the PS3, but I know that it sure does look awesome on a huge 1080p TV. Quick question - I told my brother that he should get Bioshock for his PS3. So he did and I happened to be at his house when he put it in. It took 15 minutes to load! Is that a normal thing for the PS3?

[MikePizzoff]

Quick question - I told my brother that he should get Bioshock for his PS3. So he did and I happened to be at his house when he put it in. It took 15 minutes to load! Is that a normal thing for the PS3? If that's really the case, it's no wonder why I hear so many people talking about how they barely touch their PS3.

[Danny]

I don't really know much about the PS3, but I know that it sure does look awesome on a huge 1080p TV. Quick question - I told my brother that he should get Bioshock for his PS3. So he did and I happened to be at his house when he put it in. It took 15 minutes to load! Is that a normal thing for the PS3? quite a few need to be installed upon the first play, in some cases for up to half an hour (capcom recommended going and making yourself a sandwich whilst dmc4 installed) and others like metal gear will get so far into the game and do a shorter instillation of the next section multiple times throughout. sure lost oddessy was on four discs, but when your playing it 20 seconds after the disc is popped in i dont mind switching em.

[slickwilly13]

quite a few need to be installed upon the first play, in some cases for up to half an hour (capcom recommended going and making yourself a sandwich whilst dmc4 installed) and others like metal gear will get so far into the game and do a shorter instillation of the next section multiple times throughout. sure lost oddessy was on four discs, but when your playing it 20 seconds after the disc is popped in i dont mind switching em. He's right about that. I had to do it for Dynasty Warriors 6, Resistance 2, and others. It is supposed to make the game runs faster and smoother. Sometimes the install is optional. Btw, unless you have a PS2, then try to get a 1st run PS3 60 GB.

[Danny]

He's right about that. I had to do it for Dynasty Warriors 6, Resistance 2, and others. It is supposed to make the game runs faster and smoother. Sometimes the install is optional. Btw, unless you have a PS2, then try to get a 1st run PS3 60 GB. the local gamestations got a preowned 60 gig so if i get a ps3 next week thats the one im getting, why they would choose to make it NOT play such a plethora of fantastic games from the ps2's immense back catalogue is beyond me and anyone with a sense of logic.

[slickwilly13]

the local gamestations got a preowned 60 gig so if i get a ps3 next week thats the one im getting, why they would choose to make it NOT play such a plethora of fantastic games from the ps2's immense back catalogue is beyond me and anyone with a sense of logic. Arrogance and dick-headishness on Sony's part. They want us to spend more money on a PS2 if we want backwards compatibility. Seriously, they said that. Btw, I will let you guys know how awesome God of War 3 is when it comes out.

[Tricky]

Little details removed? Explain dear Sir, I've been meaning to get around to FC2 at some point (perhaps a bit further down the line, what with me still needing to catch up on several other more important titles) ... so, what are the differences? The PC game is obviously the master version, possessing the highest-quality lighting options, superior anti-aliasing and tweakables covering many aspects of the environment, such as the vegetation, shading, texture quality and ambient effects. Both Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game have all of their variables hard-locked, so it's difficult to tell exactly what has been pared down, but it's fairly obvious that texture quality has taken quite a hit (that said, it's only really noticeable close-up and on ground textures). Water, shadowing and environmental effects have been dialled back significantly, but during the course of the action, such window-dressing is hardly essential to the gameplay. The overall impression is that the console versions are doing a supremely impressive job of emulating the superior PC visuals. Nothing is missing in terms of actual environmental objects; the African wilderness has been left unmolested in its transition to console. Even on measurable, repeatable instances of pop-in, both PS3 and 360 worked in the same way as the PC code. However, there are some minor gripes. You can't have failed to notice the poor shadows in the 360 code. Dunia is using the NVIDIA hardware PCF technique (percentage close filtering - Google 'NVIDA PCF' for arguing-the-toss purposes) to merge its shadows with the environment - no problem for PC and PS3, but PCF isn't implemented on the ATI Xenos chip. Rather than try another solution that produces a similar look, Ubisoft simply turned off transparencies on shadow edges. All shadow edges. Instead, there's an interlace/screen-door style effect that looks a lot worse than the PS3 or PC versions and is by far the biggest blemish on the Xbox 360 game's copybook. So there we go, while the gameplay is essentially identical, both console versions have been watered down to be able to run ok, therefore PC = win

[CoinReturn]

company of heroes,crysis,far cry 2,fallout 3,the ridiculously huge back catalogue of PC games of all genres,all the stuff created by the modding community,Operation flashpoint 2 when its released,the medieval series,all the upcoming pc games etc etc... and although a some of those games are available on the consoles,the PC does it better I already named Crysis, and Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 are on consoles. Also, it's easy to name a great catalog of games for any console if I go back far enough. There's a future for PC gaming, seeing as they'll always be a part of daily life, but you couldn't name anything worthwhile coming out within the next year. User-created mods are usually not worth the time. 95% of the time they scream "I'm an amateur with mod tools!", and it shows. With barely any NEW releases coming, rampant piracy, and the vast majority of gamers unwilling to upgrade, it just seem like there's much keeping developers on the platform. As far as "PC doing it better", I'll agree with you to a point. Consoles have the cutting edge graphics for about a year before PC takes over again, that's true. Higher resolution textures and picture quality are a given. But based purely on gameplay, there's little to no difference between PC and console besides the accuracy of a mouse. Even then, the only practical use of being that accurate is if you're playing a fast-paced online game like Counter Strike. Unless you're Will Wright, releasing a PC game (sans simultaneous releases with consoles) isn't a sound financial decision. If it doesn't say "Sims" on the box, it's not going to sell as well as it would on 360 or PS3; another reason PC centric developers like Epic have made the switch. The bottom line - there are only 1 or 2 must have PC titles released a year. That's a fact. There are over a dozen that I could spout of for 360 alone. Don't you wanna play Resident Evil 5? Edit: PS3 is too expensive! There, had to keep something in this thread related to the OP.

[Craig]

What I love about PC is that there's so much more diversity in what you can find, because you have all the big games that are also on consoles as well as scores of PC-only titles, big or small, new or old. Tricky mentioned Blitzkrieg which (along with it's mods, expansions and other games based on the BK engine) I have gotten more hours of play out of than a lot of my other games. On the PC there's a lot of smaller, independent companies doing interesting new things or catering to their niche market whatever that may be, but for them it's not usually profitable to release on anything but the PC, so it swings in roundabouts I guess. Anyway, the PS3... financially it's never been an option. Then there's the fact that only one of my friends got one while we were at school, whereas at least 7 or 8 of my other friends got the 360. Then round that off with a relatively poor list of titles at the time it's easy to see why it wasn't a hard decision. However I am starting to notice some PS3 exclusives that tickle my interest a tiny bit. Still, nothing yet to make me want to even consider shelling out for the console. The (supposedly) better graphics and Blu-Ray has never been an issue, I would never let them (especially the Blu-Ray) take presidence over whether I actually want the games the console has to offer.

[AcesandEights]

The bottom line - there are only 1 or 2 must have PC titles released a year. That's a fact.

[capncnut]

Ooh, Coin stuck his foot in that one. Bravo Tricky & Aces. F**k off did he. Who want's to splay out a trillion squids on a PC rig to play s**t that's already out on 360? 360 is £129. Shut yer mowf!

[SymphonicX]

I have a ps3 and an xbox...both paid full whack for... I love my 360, even though I'll be on my fourth now, and the one I just had replaced is faulty too...bummer...but I'd put up with all these little issues for the great selection of games. It all comes down to one thing: selection of games. Ps3 has about 4 games worth playing, and two of them I absolutely ****ing hate...(unchartered and mgs4). I've owned the console for nearly a year and have played 4 games on it in total. I have a fair few blu-ray movies but this is a CONSOLE. I want to play bloody games on it too!!! Sony have totally dropped the ball on the ps3. It's a complete piece of rubbish and I'm glad the 360 is trouncing it. it's a ****e product and an insult to gamers, and techie fans. There's so much potential in that system and Sony have realised little to none of it.

[Tricky]

F**k off did he. Who want's to splay out a trillion squids on a PC rig to play s**t that's already out on 360? 360 is £129. Shut yer mowf! Give it a year when 360 games start looking wank compared to the latest PC titles, tune will change Anyway if you know what your doing you can build a high spec PC for the price the 360 was on launch