Why I will never buy another game console...

bman

unread,

Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98

to

B man asks
If you don't like consoles then what are you doing at a Console based news
group then?
If you don't like console gaming then you don't belong here and your opinion
means nothing!

Do us all a favor and go back to playing with your pu'ter and leave the
video game playing to us!

B...

Kevin Clark

unread,

Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98

to

W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:19:08 -0500, Joshua Kaufman
> <kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> >W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:55:18 -0500, Gregory Kam <gk...@newbridge.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
> >> >RAM, HD space,or CPUs
> >> >that make the most out of whatever game you're
> >> >playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
> >> >PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
> >> >version" of the game).
> >> >
> >> Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
> >> installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
> >> space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
> >> video, etc. is played from a CD.
> >>
> >
> >You know, it seems like a funny Catch-22 there. If you have the less
> >disc space, forcing you to do the "minimal installation", then chances
> >are that you also have a computer which can't handle the game as well,
> >and would take longer time to access the CD, because of the slower CD
> >drive combined with the fact you need to get most of the data off the
> >CD.
>
> I don't think you are understanding me here.. If you can install ANY
> version of the game, then the whole game is playable. Just because you
> may only have 100 MB to install over 1000 MB to install doesn't mean
> that you can't play it. You just don't have enough space..
>
> My point is, there are NO games (IIRC) that require (for example) a
> P90 to run, but a P166 for the full version.
>

Very true, but you might be able to "play" a game on a P90, but it runs so
slow that you might as well not be trying to play it.Where as if you had a
P166 you could play the game decently.

> Again, the only difference is the HDD requirement.
>
> Ben
>
> -={ To get my real email address, remove the NOSPAM }=-
>
> SPAMMERS!!! Read this!!!
> No spam for me! Unwanted, unsolicited commmercial email
> WILL be dealt with.. And, why the hell do you even bother
> sending the shit if you don't include your own return address?

Dalton

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

There are some PCs vs. consoles debates going on, and I am in no way
implying that one or the other is dying. I am speaking from my own
personal preference. And I say that for myself, consoles are indeed
dead. Early reports on the Playstation 2 indicate it will be combined
with a WebTV, and Sony wants to design it to do more than just play
games. I have this feeling that its basically going to be a stripped
down PC, and since I buy a new computer every two years, there is
absolutely no reason for me to buy consoles. The Playstation 2 will
be some stripped down PC, Sega will probably make more stupid
business mistakes, and Nintendo's leadership is simply too arrogant to
be taken seriously. I am in no way bashing consoles, there are here
to stay for those who don't have PCs, but since I always have a state
of the art computer for business reasons, it is a utter waste for me
to purchase another game console, after my N64 and PSX have outlived
their usefulness. Sure, I'll miss out on some exclusive games, but a
few games aren't worth the price of a console.

jb

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. You must understand that
many true gamers have more than one system. To limit yourself to just the
PC, you're missing out on half of what the gaming industry has to offer.
Just think about this -> Can you play all the games that I can with my PC
and consoles ?

The PC is obsolete 3 months after you bought it. I don't understand why
people feel the need to brag about their "state-of-the-art" PCs !!! Are
you going to upgrade every quarter to keep your PC "state-of-the-art" ?

- That is my 2 cents -

Dalton

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

>Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. You must understand that
>many true gamers have more than one system. To limit yourself to just the
>PC, you're missing out on half of what the gaming industry has to offer.
>Just think about this -> Can you play all the games that I can with my PC
>and consoles ?

I'm not that much of a serious gamer. Sure, I'll miss out on some
exclusives, but they're not worth buying a console for.

>The PC is obsolete 3 months after you bought it. I don't understand why
>people feel the need to brag about their "state-of-the-art" PCs !!! Are
>you going to upgrade every quarter to keep your PC "state-of-the-art" ?

All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A
Pentium 133 is recommended. That is a dinosaur. I upgrade every two
years for business reasons, and a lot of others do also.

ManicButt

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

> and since I buy a new computer every two years, there is
>absolutely no reason for me to buy consoles.

Well, duh. I think you miss the point of the game consoles. They exist not to
surpass what's available on computers (the current crop is better than PCs for
arcade-style fighting and driving games, but little else), but to serve as
low-cost, dedicated replacements for those who don't own state-of-the-art
equipment.

I'm happy that you always have a state-of-the-art machine at your disposal. I
doubt that's the case for every young game geek who is in school or just
starting out in a career More power to you..

chuc...@mindspring.com!!!no

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

I've been a PC gamer for the past couple of years--the last game system
I owned was the original nintendo that I bought in 86. There's a lot to
be said for PC games--you gotta luv the fact you can save 'em. But now
the games look so good on both game platforms I HAVE to buy one but it's
a hell of a decision to make.

Personally, I look forward to the psx2. I hoped to wait until it's
released but I can wait no more. The psx2 is something that will put
most of us in awe. Just think guys...if they do include DVD technology
in the psx2, it will be able to hold up to 8.4 GIGABYTES vs 640MB!!! The
detail and sound would be amazing.

Mark Hendren

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 00:00:11 +0000, chuc...@mindspring.com!!!NO,
SPAM!!! wrote:

>Personally, I look forward to the psx2. I hoped to wait until it's
>released but I can wait no more. The psx2 is something that will put
>most of us in awe. Just think guys...if they do include DVD technology
>in the psx2, it will be able to hold up to 8.4 GIGABYTES vs 640MB!!! The
>detail and sound would be amazing.

Yeah...just more room for developers to cram useless FMV instead of
concentrating on gameplay. :)

Mark
http://www.late-show.com

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

On 26 Mar 1998 02:45:41 GMT, "jb" <jb...@iname.com> wrote:

>Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. You must understand that
>many true gamers have more than one system. To limit yourself to just the
>PC, you're missing out on half of what the gaming industry has to offer.
>Just think about this -> Can you play all the games that I can with my PC
>and consoles ?
>

He already said he couldn't and didn't care to.. The price of a
console is not worth a few good games on it, unless you have NOTHING
to do all day but play games.

>The PC is obsolete 3 months after you bought it. I don't understand why
>people feel the need to brag about their "state-of-the-art" PCs !!! Are
>you going to upgrade every quarter to keep your PC "state-of-the-art" ?
>

He didn't brag, and PC's don't need to be upgraded every quarter to
remain state of the art, contrary to popular belief. Hell, the P166MMX
is just NOW becoming middle range for PC's..

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:36:26 -0500, "bman" <jonn...@bright.net>
wrote:

Typical console fool.. Read what he had to say, and you will see that
he DOES own an N64 AND a Playstation, but sees no reason to buy any
more past that. You can if you want, just remember to have a life
sometime.

Since when did you become qualified to judge opinions?

Cliff Lawson

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Dalton wrote in message <3519b5e...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...

>personal preference. And I say that for myself, consoles are indeed
>dead

But the vast majority of people buying consoles must surely be home users
and faced with the choice of a console at $200 and a PC at $2000 it's a
pretty sure bet what most will choose if they just want to play games.

Tend to agree that if consoles start to become "baby PCs" at $500-$1000 then
the pendulum wil probably swing the other way. However I think the console
makers understand that the money isn't to be made from the console itself
but the software titles so will probably always sell the hardware at below
cost as a sort of "loss leader".

Cliff

Gregory Kam

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:

> On 26 Mar 1998 02:45:41 GMT, "jb" <jb...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> >Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. You must understand that
> >many true gamers have more than one system. To limit yourself to just the
> >PC, you're missing out on half of what the gaming industry has to offer.
> >Just think about this -> Can you play all the games that I can with my PC
> >and consoles ?
> >
> He already said he couldn't and didn't care to.. The price of a
> console is not worth a few good games on it, unless you have NOTHING
> to do all day but play games.

I have been a long-time computer game player, but last
November my son got a PSX.

I've been waiting to upgrade my PC (486-66) for over
a year now, but slowly I'm beginning to convert over to
the consoles (esp. PSX).

I know that PC games are generally better, but one of the
big reasons I like the PSX now is due to the gun games.

Sure the PC has Virtua Cop, but I have yet to see any decent
gun peripherals (like Innovation's Jolt Gun) for the PC.

Also, I'd be missing out on all the cool Namco games that
never seem to get ported over to the PC.

> >The PC is obsolete 3 months after you bought it. I don't understand why
> >people feel the need to brag about their "state-of-the-art" PCs !!! Are
> >you going to upgrade every quarter to keep your PC "state-of-the-art" ?
> >
> He didn't brag, and PC's don't need to be upgraded every quarter to
> remain state of the art, contrary to popular belief. Hell, the P166MMX
> is just NOW becoming middle range for PC's..

I think any PC gamer would tell you that it's expensive to
keep up-to-date with the PC market.

It's great that you can upgrade your PC in parts, but the
drawback is that game companies come to expect frequent
HW upgrades, and design their software accordingly.

What if you could upgrade your PSX in parts? Add more
memory? A faster CD-drive?

One of the other big pluses is the standardization of the
PSX platform. Whenever I rent a game, i have to face the
fact that I may be spending 1-2 hrs installing and debugging
the thing so that I can maximize my system requirements for
the game. Let me tell you, it's a big pain in the ass.

It's so nice to just rent a game for the PSX and pop it
into the drive and *know* that it will work 1st time out.

Now, there are only a few games on the PC that I'm
missing out. Don't get me wrong, I still think PCs are great,
but honestly, why would you need to upgrade from a 486-66
if not for games? I can cruise the web, write spreadsheets,
and Word documents, and do all that image editing stuff without
having to upgrade to a P-166. Sure, it will be a little slower,
but it's not like I'm running a home business or something.

It came down to, should I upgrade my PC for $1.5 k and then
buy TR2 for $60, or just pay $60 for the PSX version?

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

>All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A Pentium 133 is recommended.

I'd like to know where you shop!

Dllem
_ _
+---ooo-O-ooo-----------+
To reply remove the i
from the email address
+-==--==--=-=--==--==-+
Cheap Stuff:
www.shop4.com (Lots of stuff)
www.pricewatch.com (Computer stuff)
www.dvdexpress.com (Dvd Movies)
+-==--==--=-=--==--==-+

Gregory Kam

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Dalton wrote:

> The sub $1000 market presents a significant challenge to consoles.
> Especially if Microsoft/Intel decide to get together, and undercut
> Nintendo/Sony/Sega out of business. Sony's recent announcement of
> WebTV and other capabilities in the PSX2 can only encourage this.
> What if Wintel comes out with sub $500 PCs from now, and targets them
> directly to would-be console buyers? "For little more than the price
> of a console, you can get a PC that can play games better than a
> console, and do a lot more things."

Don't forget though that with a cheap $1000 PC system,
you will usually be lacking most of the features that make
PCs so lucrative to gamers.

I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
RAM, HD space,or CPUs
that make the most out of whatever game you're
playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
version" of the game).

One other big "plus" for consoles is that games are
very easy to rent. If your local stores don't carry that
specific PC game you want, you will have to risk it with
a demo to see if your system is up to snuff...

Greg

student

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

In article <3522e6c1...@NEWS.erols.com> iDl...@Juno.com (Dllem) writes:
>>All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A Pentium
133 is recommended.

>I'd like to know where you shop!

>Dllem

you can also play a 8-player game of netmech on a 486/66 with 8M ram =)..
<cough> <cough> i think with a 14.4 modem at that but i'd have to check.

Gregory Kam

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Dalton

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:38:17 GMT, iDl...@Juno.com (Dllem) wrote:

>>All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A Pentium 133 is recommended.
>
>I'd like to know where you shop!

CompUSA.

jmsndwch

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Dalton wrote:

> The sub $1000 market presents a significant challenge to consoles.
> Especially if Microsoft/Intel decide to get together, and undercut
> Nintendo/Sony/Sega out of business. Sony's recent announcement of
> WebTV and other capabilities in the PSX2 can only encourage this.

I don't think this is an issue at all. Intel and Microsoft have very
little incentive to do this. Microsoft currently has interests in the
upcoming Sega console, and if I'm not mistaken, WebTV is a Microsoft
technology -- so if that's the case, they'll have an interest in PSX2 if
Sony chooses to go that route.

As for Intel, I don't think the console market is a serious enough
threat to them that they would take a loss on their technology (the only
possible motivation would be payola from Microsoft... and I don't see
that happening). Intel have bigger fish to fry: AMD and Cyrix. They're
also getting into the 3D chip market. If anything, they might start
providing silicon for consoles.. but I don't anticipate any direct
competition.

> What if Wintel comes out with sub $500 PCs from now, and targets them
> directly to would-be console buyers? "For little more than the price
> of a console, you can get a PC that can play games better than a
> console, and do a lot more things."

But today's sub-$1000 PC's are powered by mostly clone or "outdated"
processors, like 166 and 200Mhz Pentium chips, AMD K6 or CyrixMX chips.
Not to mention "sub-standard" system configurations such as coming
equipped with less than 32MB of RAM or no L2 cache, using the S3 Virge
(or another ancient and cheap chipset) or coming without a monitor.

To upgrade these systems to a real "game player's" standard, probably
requires an additional investment of $400-$500, perhaps even more
(particularly given the resource-hungry nature of Windows 95). The 3D
experience offered by even the current batch of consoles can be
replicated on PCs, and surpassed, but that requires a decently fast PC
and a half-decent 3D accelerator, not to mention more memory so that
Windows isn't swapping with the hard drive all the time.

And let's face it, the current batch of sub-$1000 PCs are on the
trailing edge of technology, and will become obsolete in short order
compared to the current batches of Pentium II systems and (quite soon)
266MHz and faster clones. Even leading edge technology doesn't share the
same longevity held by consoles, and even at $500, a short system life
may be hard to swallow for many gamers.

GEMiNI

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Think about this, as you are reading these newsgroups how are you feeling?
Look at yourself, do you REALLY feel comfortable? I mean, most of us are
sitting in office type chairs that have way too much lean and "perfect" back
support, we're in front of desks staring into a 16-21" monitor while the
blood rushes down to your cold feet and the first signs of turrret syndrome
begin to appear. This isn't for me at least, the ideal situation for console
type gaming....
I don't care what kind of krazy, killer, setup you have with your PC, they
just aren't suited for "console type gaming". The idea of console games
isn't to be switiching from gamepad, to mouse, to keyboard, back to gamepad.
And even if you do have some sort of sick PC gamepad, its just not the
same...
If I just want to flex and play some games, i'd much rather slouch into my
couchprint, kick my feets onto the coffee table, have my cell nearby, juice
and ashtry within reach, and donning my single controler knowing that only
god himself could give me reason enough to make me get up again....
Shit, I mean sometimes I'm too lazy to even switch games, nevermind worring
about my conflicting IRQ's...

Don't get me wrong, the PC is still the king for corridor type games and
most simulation & stratygy/thinking-type games. But I also don't see it
necessary to have those on my console (You want me to use my controler as a
mouse? What kinda shit is that?) I can't see what the argument here is, if
you want to get the whole spectrum, you NEED to buy the occacsional console
and continue drooping the $1000's into your CPU.
Like taxes and spam,its just a fact of life......

-GEMiNI

Dalton wrote in message <3519b5e...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...

>There are some PCs vs. consoles debates going on, and I am in no way
>implying that one or the other is dying. I am speaking from my own

>personal preference. And I say that for myself, consoles are indeed

student

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

>-GEMiNI

i agree wholeheartedly, just the other day, i was playing some quake when my
computer went down(not excatly, but i'm making a point =) ). Anyway after an
hour of fustration, guess what i decided to do, play some SF2, i put the game
in, and after about 30 seconds i was back on my game playing high =). On the
other hand you don't look as odd screaming to 15 people across the net as you
do yelling at your TV, or the guy sitting next to you for that matter =).

Gregory Kam

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Dllem wrote:

> >All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A Pentium 133 is recommended.
>
> I'd like to know where you shop!

No, I believe what he's saying. Most PC games
*do* list a P-90 as the *minimum* requirements, but
that's just like Quake running on a 486.

Sure, it may run, but do you *really* want to play
the game that way?

Othertimes, it is simply unplayable on the min. system
requirements (it just barely runs).

Greg

Denis and Susan Martin

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

> Dalton wrote in message <3519b5e...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> >There are some PCs vs. consoles debates going on, and I am in no way
> >implying that one or the other is dying. I am speaking from my own
> >personal preference. And I say that for myself, consoles are indeed
> >dead. Early reports on the Playstation 2 indicate it will be combined
> >with a WebTV, and Sony wants to design it to do more than just play
> >games. I have this feeling that its basically going to be a stripped
> >down PC, and since I buy a new computer every two years, there is
> >absolutely no reason for me to buy consoles. The Playstation 2 will
> >be some stripped down PC, Sega will probably make more stupid
> >business mistakes, and Nintendo's leadership is simply too arrogant to
> >be taken seriously. I am in no way bashing consoles, there are here
> >to stay for those who don't have PCs, but since I always have a state
> >of the art computer for business reasons, it is a utter waste for me
> >to purchase another game console, after my N64 and PSX have outlived
> >their usefulness. Sure, I'll miss out on some exclusive games, but a
> >few games aren't worth the price of a console.

Well said Gemini, well said!!!

Amaury

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

What about overlaying MPEG-2 video as a texture map on polygons?
For example, take G-Police. Imagine a sequal is made for the PSX-2. As
you are flying around the city, you see full motion videos on the
billboards (better than the AGP extreme textures for the PC version). Or
take any other game. What about a racing game, flight game, fighting
game which you can mix MPEG-2 video in with the polygons AT THE SAME
TIME during the game. You can have a full motion video noninteractive
background running as it's streamed off the DVD drive as the foreground
is filled with rendered polygons. Believe it or not, this would take
less load off the CPU since those background graphics are prerendered
being decompressed by the MPEG-2 decoder. I read that the cancelled M2
had this ability but it was with MPEG-1 video (quad or 6x speed regular
cd-rom).

neko

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

you're inferior, because Denis and Susan Martin (vi...@magi.com) wrote:
| Well said Gemini, well said!!!

not to jump on you specifically, it is considered rude by many to quote a
66 line post, not cut any of it, and respond with a one-line 'me too'
reply. those of us w/ unix newsreaders which generally don't support
'end' keys can get a bit edgy about this, since it entails about ten page
downs for a rather anticlimatic finish. thank you.

(mailed to the author as a mistake)

--

-- neko *meow*

"capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things
you didn't have a good answer to." -- douglas adams

Prawn

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

Amaury wrote:
>
> What about overlaying MPEG-2 video as a texture map on polygons?
> For example, take G-Police. Imagine a sequal is made for the PSX-2. As
> you are flying around the city, you see full motion videos on the
> billboards (better than the AGP extreme textures for the PC version). Or
> take any other game. What about a racing game, flight game, fighting
> game which you can mix MPEG-2 video in with the polygons AT THE SAME
> TIME during the game. You can have a full motion video noninteractive
> background running as it's streamed off the DVD drive as the foreground
> is filled with rendered polygons. Believe it or not, this would take
> less load off the CPU since those background graphics are prerendered
> being decompressed by the MPEG-2 decoder. I read that the cancelled M2
> had this ability but it was with MPEG-1 video (quad or 6x speed regular
> cd-rom).

Some may remember a PC game called Megarace, in which a car was running
over a video of a rendered track. The result was a crappy game. Since it
was a video, the control of the car had to be built around the track,
causing problems with control in the same way that FMV action games
required you to initiate movements in tune with a sequence of frames of
video. Looks pretty, plays terribly.

--
Khoa Vuong . . . . ufs0...@email.sjsu.edu
"We'd tasted victory, and it was a flavor we liked."

Prawn

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

My videogame life had started with consoles, starting from an Atari
(keyboard) to NES to Genesis. It all ended when I realized, at the time,
computer games offered so much more. Sure it was a little more
complicated to set up, but the end result was more satisfying. I was
obsessed with Ultima 7 and Might and Magic to the point where I ended my
console streak. After may upgrades, a new computer, and a few years had
passed, I started looking into consoles again and found that consoles
could give me just as much enjoyment, if not more. Certainly I would not
be able to play as many games on my outdated PC as I can on my PSX
simply for monetary reasons.

But the amazing thing about consoles is that the games actually get
better in time. I'm constantly surprised at how much power developers
can squeeze into the PSX. Compare that to PC's in which more often than
not, newer games will need newer hardware.

Edward Tatman

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 03:06:10 GMT, dalton...@yahoo.com (Dalton)
wrote:

>>Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. You must understand that
>>many true gamers have more than one system. To limit yourself to just the
>>PC, you're missing out on half of what the gaming industry has to offer.
>>Just think about this -> Can you play all the games that I can with my PC
>>and consoles ?
>

>I'm not that much of a serious gamer. Sure, I'll miss out on some
>exclusives, but they're not worth buying a console for.

Thats your problem your not a serious gamer. I plan on buying the
Japanese Katana because I can't wait for the american release.

David Leung

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

Hmmm....I have to disagree with your assessment
of the console market. One of the main reason why
I've continued to support console games, despite
owning a computer that can handle the latest games
(minus a 3-d card), I'd still want to have a home
console, as long as they continue to make good games.
The reason for that is simply because console games
and pc games are diffenent in many ways. I find that
you can find more action oriented game fun-to-play
types of games on your average console. The pc games
as awhole requires more intellecutal with less of a
focus on just making the games fun.
I dont want to get into all the other differences that
I feel exist between pc and console games. Lets just
say that I see enough difference at this point to warrent
the need to have a good home console system and a
pc to satisfy my gaming needs.

Dave. L

David Leung

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

Dalton wrote:

> >Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. You must understand that
> >many true gamers have more than one system. To limit yourself to just the
> >PC, you're missing out on half of what the gaming industry has to offer.
> >Just think about this -> Can you play all the games that I can with my PC
> >and consoles ?
>
> I'm not that much of a serious gamer. Sure, I'll miss out on some
> exclusives, but they're not worth buying a console for.

Hmmm....maybe I should have read all the posts before I made
a reply to your original post. I think you just answered the question
to your original post. The problem is you're not a serious gamer,
in which case I can see why you dont see the need to buy any more
new consoles. For the casual gamers it's fine to just have a pc and
be satisfied. But for the more advid gamers it's stupid to limit
yourself to just one platform, cuz that way you're bound to miss
good games which you'll only see in certain platforms.

Dave. L

>
>
> >The PC is obsolete 3 months after you bought it. I don't understand why
> >people feel the need to brag about their "state-of-the-art" PCs !!! Are
> >you going to upgrade every quarter to keep your PC "state-of-the-art" ?
>

> All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A

> Pentium 133 is recommended. That is a dinosaur. I upgrade every two
> years for business reasons, and a lot of others do also.

Joshua Kaufman

unread,

Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98

to

W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:

>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:55:18 -0500, Gregory Kam <gk...@newbridge.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
> >RAM, HD space,or CPUs
> >that make the most out of whatever game you're
> >playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
> >PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
> >version" of the game).
> >

> Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
> installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
> space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
> video, etc. is played from a CD.
>

You know, it seems like a funny Catch-22 there. If you have the less
disc space, forcing you to do the "minimal installation", then chances
are that you also have a computer which can't handle the game as well,
and would take longer time to access the CD, because of the slower CD
drive combined with the fact you need to get most of the data off the
CD.

-Joshua

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98

to

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:55:18 -0500, Gregory Kam <gk...@newbridge.com>
wrote:

>
>I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
>RAM, HD space,or CPUs
>that make the most out of whatever game you're
>playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
>PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
>version" of the game).
>
Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
video, etc. is played from a CD.

Ben

ManicButt

unread,

Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98

to

>>I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
>>RAM, HD space,or CPUs
>>that make the most out of whatever game you're
>>playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
>>PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
>>version" of the game).
>>
>Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
>installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
>space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
>video, etc. is played from a CD.

I think by "full version," he means running a game with all the graphics and
sound options turned on. It's a nice feature for publishers to include options
to turn on/off 3D acceleration, shadows, high detail textures, high res sounds,
etc., but it's also nice to not feel like you're compromising the game
experience too much.

Fortunately, this isn't an issue for most console games, but it IS starting to
show up in some N64 (Quake, Goldeneye, and Hexen, I believe) and PSX titles
(Duke Nukem, G-Police). I find this weirder than weird. Why not just optimize
the graphics for the machine in the first place?

Personally, I hate to have to make the choice between resolution and framerate
myself. I turn into some Frosted Mini-Wheats spokesperson. On the one hand, I
crave the hearty gameplay and speed that goes along with a smooth framerate.
But another side of me wants to see crispy, high resolution images. You know,
the kind of choices the readers of "Boot" magazine never need to make -- if
their Quake 2 is running under 30 FPS, they just run out and buy a new
processor and 3d card!

Dllem

unread,

Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98

to

Ms/Mr.Gregory Kam <gk...@newbridge.com> lightened all our hearts with::

>Dllem wrote:
>
>> >All the games on the software shelves I see require a Pentium 90. A Pentium 133 is recommended.
>>

>> I'd like to know where you shop!
>
>No, I believe what he's saying. Most PC games
>*do* list a P-90 as the *minimum* requirements, but
>that's just like Quake running on a 486.
>

Riven, Longbow2, Wing Commander Prophecy, Flight Unlimited, Ultimate
Race Pro, etc.. will not run on a P133. Don't even *attempt* to run
these on a Pentium90. I don't call 3 Frames-per-second playable.
Every cool upcoming game (most likely) won't run on a P133.

Sure the Majority will run on a P90, but that's because the majority
of software is over 1 year old! In a couple months, the old stuff
will start to clear out.

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98

to

On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:51:09 GMT, gleyl...@armageddon.net (Lord
Gleylancer) wrote:

>W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:
>
>>Typical console fool.. Read what he had to say, and you will see that
>>he DOES own an N64 AND a Playstation, but sees no reason to buy any
>>more past that. You can if you want, just remember to have a life
>>sometime.
>>
>>Since when did you become qualified to judge opinions?
>>
>>Ben
>>
>
>Since when did you ?
>
Read my post, Einstein, and you will see that I did NOT judge an
opinion, and merely commented on his judgement.

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98

to

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:19:08 -0500, Joshua Kaufman
<kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:

>W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:55:18 -0500, Gregory Kam <gk...@newbridge.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >

>> >I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
>> >RAM, HD space,or CPUs
>> >that make the most out of whatever game you're
>> >playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
>> >PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
>> >version" of the game).
>> >
>> Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
>> installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
>> space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
>> video, etc. is played from a CD.
>>
>

>You know, it seems like a funny Catch-22 there. If you have the less
>disc space, forcing you to do the "minimal installation", then chances
>are that you also have a computer which can't handle the game as well,
>and would take longer time to access the CD, because of the slower CD
>drive combined with the fact you need to get most of the data off the
>CD.

I don't think you are understanding me here.. If you can install ANY
version of the game, then the whole game is playable. Just because you
may only have 100 MB to install over 1000 MB to install doesn't mean
that you can't play it. You just don't have enough space..

My point is, there are NO games (IIRC) that require (for example) a
P90 to run, but a P166 for the full version.

Again, the only difference is the HDD requirement.

Captain Calzone

unread,

Mar 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/28/98

to

b...@blowmespammers.mindspring.com (W. Benjamin Fletcher) wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:55:18 -0500, Gregory Kam <gk...@newbridge.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't think most $1k PCs include 3Dfx cards, extra
>>RAM, HD space,or CPUs
>>that make the most out of whatever game you're
>>playing (nothing worse than installing a game on your
>>PC and finding out that your system cannot run the "full
>>version" of the game).
>>
>Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
>installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
>space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
>video, etc. is played from a CD.

Err... I have never played a game where the video(if there was any
ammount) could be put on the HD. I think the best example is Ultima
Online. You CAN use minimal installs, but it seems that most everyone
says that anything less than the 500-ish meg one is unplayable.
Frankly, playing most games with minimum installs means large ammounts
of waiting for things to happen... they are called "Reccomended"
because otherwise they don't work right.
----------------------
Captain Calzone
Webmaster: Church of the Golden Monkey
We're coming back, and there is nothing you can do!
----------------------
"There is nothing in the fine print that says "idiots get hurt!"
I'm gonna sue!!!!"

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:54:00 -0600, Kevin Clark <kcl...@iconnect.net>
wrote:

>

>
>Very true, but you might be able to "play" a game on a P90, but it runs so
>slow that you might as well not be trying to play it.Where as if you had a
>P166 you could play the game decently.
>
OK.. If you can PLAY the game decently with a minimal install, the
requirements (except HD space) DON'T go up.. That was my point...

Keith

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to

Consoles are not dead/dying. Reason: Pioneer came out with a "LaserActive"
a couple years back. It was supposed to be an all-in-one box too with game
support, Turbo Duo compatibility and a karaoke machine built in. It is now
dead. There was also "Philips CD-i" which was supposed to be all in one.
It could play games, and movies. It is also dead. Given this history Sony
would have to be REALLY dumb to release a game system/web TV combo. People
who are looking for a web TV with think it's a toy for playing games, people
looking to play games will think it's for browsing the internet. I'm
thinkin' sony is smarter than that.

Second of all Next Generation Magazine, which has an incredible talent for
predicting the future of video games, seems optimistic about Sega's next
system. The developement system was made by microsoft, and the controller
is supposed great...

In conclusion, consoles are far from dead (did I mention Golden Eye in and
of itself is enough to keep the faith?)
bye
Keith
http://members.xoom.com/Keith97

Dalton wrote in message <3519b5e...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...

gippah

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to

W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 00:54:00 -0600, Kevin Clark <kcl...@iconnect.net>
> wrote:

> >Very true, but you might be able to "play" a game on a P90, but it runs so
> >slow that you might as well not be trying to play it.Where as if you had a
> >P166 you could play the game decently.
> >
> OK.. If you can PLAY the game decently with a minimal install, the
> requirements (except HD space) DON'T go up.. That was my point...

I have 2 PC's (a K6-200 MMX and a 486DX2-80) and a Playstation. Both
have their advantages, to be sure, I would have to say that gaming
consoles are definitely NOT going by the wayside.

PC games are far better when you're talking about first-person shooters
(like Quake 2) and RPG's (even when yer talking about oldies like Eye of
the Beholder). First-person shooters are better because of the 3d-cards
you can buy, and RPG's are better because you have a keyboard at your
disposal (first person shooters are much better with a keyboard and
mouse as well). Consoles, however, are better at everything else. You
get much better gameplay for arcade games, and of course you get a much
better selection of games for the consoles too. Sports games on the PC
are almost nonexistent, for example, well playable ones are anyway.

My PC's are too busy running a linux network 24/7 for me to power down
just to play a game as it is.

Both the PC's and the PSX in my house are very much appreciated, to be
sure, for very different reasons.

--
----
Remove your finger from my email address to send me a message.

Josh

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to

gippah <gip...@your.finger.spyvspy.com> wrote:

>PC games are far better when you're talking about first-person shooters
>(like Quake 2) and RPG's (even when yer talking about oldies like Eye of

And strategy games (both real time and turn based), and flight sims,
and racing sims, and multiplayer games with 10+ players,
action-strategy games like Uprising, Battlezone 2 and Armor Command,
to name a few other genres which are better on the PC.

>mouse as well). Consoles, however, are better at everything else. You

I would say consoles are better only for arcade ports, and that is
only because PC gamers are generally older than console gamers, thus
are not as interested in arcade games anymore.

>get much better gameplay for arcade games, and of course you get a much
>better selection of games for the consoles too. Sports games on the PC
>are almost nonexistent, for example, well playable ones are anyway.

Sports games nonexistent on the PC? Are you kidding? The whole EA
sports line up is available for PCs (the best versions of NHL98,
FIFA98...), as are from quite a few other companies too. I suggest you
go to for example www.avault.com or www.gamesdomain.com , and check
the number of PC sports game demos available there, and also go to
www.digitalsports.com/ to check the PC sports game reviews there.
Just so that you get the idea of the true availibility of PC sports
games on the market.

>My PC's are too busy running a linux network 24/7 for me to power down
>just to play a game as it is.

That's your problem.

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to

On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 08:40:45 GMT, gleyl...@armageddon.net (Lord
Gleylancer) wrote:

>
>
>You should read your own posts better. Your comments such as "typical
>console fool" and "just remember to have a life sometime" ARE
>judgements. Whether you like it or not.
>
They are judgements of character, based on the posts. Accurate? So
far. I can't say who's to judge OPINION, because there is no such
thing as a wrong opinion. My judgement is on character, which being a
typical console fool and not having a life defines.
Anything else?

Kyle...just Kyle

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to

Josh wrote in message <3520a592...@news.netlife.fi>...

>gippah <gip...@your.finger.spyvspy.com> wrote:
>
>>PC games are far better when you're talking about first-person shooters
>>(like Quake 2) and RPG's (even when yer talking about oldies like Eye of
>
>And strategy games (both real time and turn based), and flight sims,
>and racing sims, and multiplayer games with 10+ players,
>action-strategy games like Uprising, Battlezone 2 and Armor Command,
>to name a few other genres which are better on the PC.
>
>>mouse as well). Consoles, however, are better at everything else. You
>
>I would say consoles are better only for arcade ports, and that is
>only because PC gamers are generally older than console gamers, thus
>are not as interested in arcade games anymore.

That's not necessarily true. The average age of the PSX userbase is about
the same as for the PC gaming base. And age isn't indicative of preference
for arcade games.

-------------------------
Digital Ages Online indepdendent video games network
http://www.digital-ages.com
--containing:
PSX Unlimited senior editor, news editor
N64 Unlimited mailbag editor
-------------------------

Josh

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

"Kyle...just Kyle" <ky...@digital-ages.com> wrote:

>That's not necessarily true. The average age of the PSX userbase is about
>the same as for the PC gaming base.

Actually it is younger.

>And age isn't indicative of preference for arcade games.

Generally speaking yes it is, just like mainly kids watch Disney
movies even though there are adults who watch them too.
Exceptions to the rule.

Ken Small

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

Josh yammered...

--
-Ken

Ken Small

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

Josh yammered...
>"Kyle...just Kyle" <ky...@digital-ages.com> wrote:
>
>>That's not necessarily true. The average age of the PSX userbase is about
>>the same as for the PC gaming base.
>
>Actually it is younger.

What it the average age of a PC gamer? The average age of a PS gamer
is in their 20s, according to Sony market research that's been
published. That's where I'd expect PC gaming to average as well.

--
-Ken
Magic 8-Ball sez: Cannot predict now

Kyle...just Kyle

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

Josh wrote in message <351fb394...@news.netlife.fi>...

>"Kyle...just Kyle" <ky...@digital-ages.com> wrote:
>
>>That's not necessarily true. The average age of the PSX userbase is about
>>the same as for the PC gaming base.
>
>Actually it is younger.

Have stats to back that up? The average age of the PSX userbase is into the
20s.

>>And age isn't indicative of preference for arcade games.
>
>Generally speaking yes it is, just like mainly kids watch Disney
>movies even though there are adults who watch them too.
>Exceptions to the rule.

Arcade games aren't disney movies. There's no obvious child appeal to
ripping someone's spinal cord out.

Dalton

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

unread,

Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98

to

On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 22:06:40 GMT, cap...@maine.rr.com (Captain
Calzone) wrote:

>b...@blowmespammers.mindspring.com (W. Benjamin Fletcher) wrote:
>Since when are the requirements differing from "minimal" to "full"
>>installs of the game? The only thing that would be different is the
>>space required, and even then, the minimal install usually means the
>>video, etc. is played from a CD.
>
>Err... I have never played a game where the video(if there was any
>ammount) could be put on the HD. I think the best example is Ultima
>Online. You CAN use minimal installs, but it seems that most everyone
>says that anything less than the 500-ish meg one is unplayable.
>Frankly, playing most games with minimum installs means large ammounts
>of waiting for things to happen... they are called "Reccomended"
>because otherwise they don't work right.

Have you ever played MechWarrior 2? Age Of Empires? Total
Annihilation? All of those and MANY, MANY more games I can't even list
have the option to place video on the HDD, to speed up the playing
time of the video. The reason UO is "unplayable" without a huge
install is because there are so many different variations on
characters, weapons, and clothes, and if you don't have each and every
different one on your HDD, it has to find it off of the CD, slowing
the game down. You must be doing something VERY wrong if you can only
play a "full" install game and the others crash on you..

A.R.

unread,

Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98

to

gippah wrote in message <351DDB28...@your.finger.spyvspy.com>...

>W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:
>>
>I have 2 PC's (a K6-200 MMX and a 486DX2-80) and a Playstation. Both
>have their advantages, to be sure, I would have to say that gaming
>consoles are definitely NOT going by the wayside.
>

>PC games are far better when you're talking about first-person shooters
>(like Quake 2) and RPG's (even when yer talking about oldies like Eye of

>the Beholder). First-person shooters are better because of the 3d-cards
>you can buy, and RPG's are better because you have a keyboard at your
>disposal (first person shooters are much better with a keyboard and

>mouse as well). Consoles, however, are better at everything else. You

>get much better gameplay for arcade games, and of course you get a much
>better selection of games for the consoles too. Sports games on the PC
>are almost nonexistent, for example, well playable ones are anyway.

That's a bull. I have both Nintendo 64 and a Pentium 2, I love them both,
but the PC has more games than all consoles combined.

And about sports games, do you think EA are the only company? There are many
many Sports games. what about Gremlin? (Actua Soccer) Sierra? (their Front
Page sport serious is very large, with a great Football game).

Check the facts before you post. I really don't think consoles will die, but
the PC has much more than 3D shooters and RPG's. Arcade games too, Fighting
games, Simulators, Racing, Strategy, Quests...

A.R.

>
>My PC's are too busy running a linux network 24/7 for me to power down
>just to play a game as it is.
>

Captain Calzone

unread,

Apr 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/2/98

to

"A.R." <ave...@iname.com> wrote:

>gippah wrote in message <351DDB28...@your.finger.spyvspy.com>...
>>W. Benjamin Fletcher wrote:
>>>
>>I have 2 PC's (a K6-200 MMX and a 486DX2-80) and a Playstation. Both
>>have their advantages, to be sure, I would have to say that gaming
>>consoles are definitely NOT going by the wayside.
>>
>>PC games are far better when you're talking about first-person shooters
>>(like Quake 2) and RPG's (even when yer talking about oldies like Eye of
>>the Beholder). First-person shooters are better because of the 3d-cards
>>you can buy, and RPG's are better because you have a keyboard at your
>>disposal (first person shooters are much better with a keyboard and
>>mouse as well). Consoles, however, are better at everything else. You
>>get much better gameplay for arcade games, and of course you get a much
>>better selection of games for the consoles too. Sports games on the PC
>>are almost nonexistent, for example, well playable ones are anyway.
>
>That's a bull. I have both Nintendo 64 and a Pentium 2, I love them both,
>but the PC has more games than all consoles combined.

True, but how many are utter poop? We should count good games, and
actually consoles tend to get more "good" games, while PC's get more
poop with also more "amazing" games. Also, PC games tend to be more
customizable, which I do like. If only my computer could run any of
the amazing ones. I am NOT saying PC games suck, just that there
tends to be more on each extreme with a PC. You get more crap, you
get more gems. It evens out. Then again, that is my view of the
games. Not talking about how the hardware has upgraded me out of the
games market.

>
>And about sports games, do you think EA are the only company? There are many
>many Sports games. what about Gremlin? (Actua Soccer) Sierra? (their Front
>Page sport serious is very large, with a great Football game).

I dunno, never played Actua Soccer, but FP Football is a great sim
missing a game. In fact, I have never like the FP series. Come to
think about it, I can't remember liking a PC sports game. I'm just
more into the EA line, and I always play that on my console because I
can actually get them to run and the controler is nicer than my
keyboard. As always, just my view.

>
>Check the facts before you post. I really don't think consoles will die, but
>the PC has much more than 3D shooters and RPG's. Arcade games too, Fighting
>games, Simulators, Racing, Strategy, Quests...

True, very true. Arcade games rock on a PC, even mine. Hell, if I
can play Tempest on it, I'm a happy guy. :) Fighters, however, have
never been a PC strong point. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone
who will say the PC has great 1on1 fighters. Quests... is that a type
of game? I think you mean adventure games. If so, more power to you!
Monkey Island 3 alone kept me glued to the moniter long enough to
develop some serious health problems! :)

Still, PC's to me are just not a gaming alternative. I can't afford
to keep up with technology enough to play games for more than a year
at a time. I know it is a tired argument, but well... it is the
truth. A new PC has about a year of top o the line game playing in
it, and that is being generous. I have a P-100 that I got in err...
1995, I think. I have 48 megs of RAM, and that is all that is keeping
it from becoming a glorified Web TV/word processor hybrid. There will
always be both markets, PC games for people who have recently bought a
PC, and consoles for the rest of us. There are exceptions, and this
is just my view. I could be wrong. I wanna know what you think,
America. Call us at 1-800-LACTOSE... err... sorry, I tend to do that
sometimes...

JTX

unread,

Apr 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/10/98

to

In article <351a120f...@news.mindspring.com>, b...@blowmespammers.mindspring.com wrote:
>just remember to have a life sometime.

Who has time for a life when you have a Playstation!?!?!?!

BTW, My opinion is....PC games suck. I own a 200MHZ Compaq PC, a PowerMac
6100, N64 and Playstaion. Which is best? PLAYSTATION!!!

EXAR KUN

unread,

Apr 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/10/98

to

JTX wrote in message <6gk6np$p6o$1...@thefuture.qualcomm.com>...

I agree. PC games pretty much suck. Using a joystick/joypad along with the
keyboard just isn't natural or comfortable. It destroys all spontaneous
response.

.

MrNiceGuy

unread,

Apr 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/11/98

to

>>BTW, My opinion is....PC games suck. I own a 200MHZ Compaq PC, a PowerMac
>>6100, N64 and Playstaion. Which is best? PLAYSTATION!!!
>
>
>I agree. PC games pretty much suck. Using a joystick/joypad along with the
>keyboard just isn't natural or comfortable. It destroys all spontaneous
>response.
>

Boy, I have a feeling you're gonna catch some hell over that one.
Personally, I prefer a PSX-esque pad for almost any type of game. But the
mouse/keyboard combo is about the best way to play games like Quake.
I will agree the most computer games suck. And you can forget about getting
a decent fighter or platformer. About the only types of games I use my pc
for are rpgs and the occassional deathmatch. But, then again, that's really
just a matter of personal preference.

MrNiceGuy
("ain't no nice guy at all")
CUTk...@bayou.com
remove CUT to reply

Find me on ICQ ---> 2454706

The Sticky Page!!!
http://www.bayou.com/~kryten/
Home of
THE PETTING ZOO
http://members.tripod.com/~kfadffal/zoo.html

Mephisto

unread,

Apr 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/11/98

to

>Who has time for a life when you have a Playstation!?!?!?!
>

>BTW, My opinion is....PC games suck. I own a 200MHZ Compaq PC, a PowerMac
>6100, N64 and Playstaion. Which is best? PLAYSTATION!!!

I disagree that PC games suck. Some of the best games out there are for PC
(and, amazingly enough, those with the best graphics are also exclusively on
PC).

You can't really have the depth that a PC game has on any console system
(esp. RPG's and Strategy Games).

But, this doesn't mean that console games suck. I own a PC, as well as a
Saturn and a PSX. All of which, I believe, have their own merits and faults,
but none of which I regret owning.

Just to flesh things out, I'll mention a few PC games that really kick ass:

Quake 2
Fallout
Interstate '76
Civilization II
Ultima (any)
Jedi Knight
Starcraft
Blade Runner
Monkey Island II
...

you get the idea. A different TYPE of game from consoles, yes, but still
good.

-Meph.

Currently, however, Tekken 3 is the best damn game I've ever played...

e.b.l.

unread,

Apr 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/11/98

to

EXAR KUN wrote in message <6gn4e0$n...@chile.earthlink.net>...

>
>JTX wrote in message <6gk6np$p6o$1...@thefuture.qualcomm.com>...
>>In article <351a120f...@news.mindspring.com>,
>b...@blowmespammers.mindspring.com wrote:
>>>just remember to have a life sometime.
>>

>>Who has time for a life when you have a Playstation!?!?!?!
>>
>>BTW, My opinion is....PC games suck. I own a 200MHZ Compaq PC, a PowerMac
>>6100, N64 and Playstaion. Which is best? PLAYSTATION!!!
>
>

>I agree. PC games pretty much suck. Using a joystick/joypad along with the
>keyboard just isn't natural or comfortable. It destroys all spontaneous
>response.

But it all depends on what you enjoy playing most. The PC is unbeatable
when it comes to flight simulations. I don't know about tank sims, but I'm
sure these are better on the PC than any console ever. As well, games that
require quick mouse interaction (Diablo, Warcraft, C&C, etc) are also
unbeatable on the PC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge console & PC gamer...yup, fighting games,
Japanese RPG's, side-scrolling adventure/action games, puzzle games, etc are
unbeatable on consoles, but the PC will always be king of flight sims or
high performance cpu/graphics simulation games.

But it is nice playing games on your big TV sitting all comfy in you're
lazy-boy/couch!

Peace,
-b.

JTX

unread,

Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98

to

PC games are different. I wouldn't want a game like SIMCITY 2000 on a console
but then again I wouldn't want Tekken 3 on a PC.

3D shooter like Quake I would much ratter play on a console just because of
the controller. I hate to use a keyboard and/or mous. But I agree the graphics
on PCs are a step above consoles but it's not that big deal to me.

I'm much more into arcade style games so naturaly I prefer consoles.

In article <6gocpt$n5d$1...@news1.bu.edu>, "Mephisto" <meph...@bu.edu> wrote:
>I disagree that PC games suck. Some of the best games out there are for PC
>(and, amazingly enough, those with the best graphics are also exclusively on
>PC).
>
>You can't really have the depth that a PC game has on any console system
>(esp. RPG's and Strategy Games).
>
>But, this doesn't mean that console games suck. I own a PC, as well as a
>Saturn and a PSX. All of which, I believe, have their own merits and faults,
>but none of which I regret owning.
>
>Just to flesh things out, I'll mention a few PC games that really kick ass:
>
>Quake 2
>Fallout
>Interstate '76
>Civilization II
>Ultima (any)
>Jedi Knight
>Starcraft
>Blade Runner
>Monkey Island II

>....

SmkMirrors

unread,

Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98

to

>>
>>Currently, however, Tekken 3 is the best damn game I've ever played...
>>

You really HAVE to play more games then :).

Mephisto

unread,

Apr 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/12/98

to

>PC games are different. I wouldn't want a game like SIMCITY 2000 on a
console
>but then again I wouldn't want Tekken 3 on a PC.
>
>3D shooter like Quake I would much ratter play on a console just because of
>the controller. I hate to use a keyboard and/or mous. But I agree the
graphics
>on PCs are a step above consoles but it's not that big deal to me.
>
>I'm much more into arcade style games so naturaly I prefer consoles.

True enough (but...you can't get the precision with a gamepad that you can
with a mouse and keyboard. Just ask thresh...)

ANYWAY, it's a moot point since everyone has their own preferences on what
they consider cool, or not cool, or lame or a better system, etc...

-Meph.

Charles Miller Jr.

unread,

Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98

to

>3D shooter like Quake I would much ratter play on a console just because of
>the controller. I hate to use a keyboard and/or mous. But I agree the
graphics
>on PCs are a step above consoles but it's not that big deal to me.

Um, but there are N64 style controllers for the PC, that you can play Quake
on. So, the controller issue in moot.

jor...@europa.com

unread,

Apr 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/13/98

to

In rec.games.video.sega Mephisto <meph...@bu.edu> wrote:
: I disagree that PC games suck. Some of the best games out there are for PC
: (and, amazingly enough, those with the best graphics are also exclusively on
: PC).

: Blade Runner

I picked up Blade Runner after I saw Next Generation describe it
as being one of the truly revolutionary games. You know what I found? A
1.6 Gig POLICE QUEST clone! What a freakin' rip-off! Granted, the graphics
are beautiful, but the gameplay on PC games hasn't changed in 10 years (or
whenever Wolf. 3d came out.)

- Jordan
jor...@europa.com

****************************************************************************
* "I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, *
* I contain multitudes..." - Walt Whitman *
****************************************************************************

W. Benjamin Fletcher

unread,

Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98

to

On 13 Apr 1998 19:44:04 GMT, <jor...@europa.com> wrote:

>In rec.games.video.sega Mephisto <meph...@bu.edu> wrote:
>: I disagree that PC games suck. Some of the best games out there are for PC
>: (and, amazingly enough, those with the best graphics are also exclusively on
>: PC).
>: Blade Runner
>
> I picked up Blade Runner after I saw Next Generation describe it
>as being one of the truly revolutionary games. You know what I found? A
>1.6 Gig POLICE QUEST clone! What a freakin' rip-off! Granted, the graphics
>are beautiful, but the gameplay on PC games hasn't changed in 10 years (or
>whenever Wolf. 3d came out.)
>

And I suppose the gameplay has jumped ahead by leaps and bounds for
consoles since 1980- something...

Please.....

ManicButt

unread,

Apr 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/14/98

to

>> I picked up Blade Runner after I saw Next Generation describe it
>>as being one of the truly revolutionary games. You know what I found? A
>>1.6 Gig POLICE QUEST clone! What a freakin' rip-off! Granted, the graphics
>>are beautiful, but the gameplay on PC games hasn't changed in 10 years (or
>>whenever Wolf. 3d came out.)
>>
>And I suppose the gameplay has jumped ahead by leaps and bounds for
>consoles since 1980- something...
>
>Please.....

Hey, some of them have. Especially the ones that can benefit from having
distinct, detailed graphics.

Driving games - feel real, and have proper scenery, at last
3D adventures/shooters, unheard of back in eightysomething
flight sims, finally possible on consoles (if not exactly exploited)
arcade-perfect emulations of old games not previously at home

of course .... there are downsides ....
driving games, driving games, driving games
the whole fighting genre
don't forget the ever-popular FMV adventure!

Nizar Dahbar

unread,

Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98

to

Alright, w/o diagressing into this issue too much again, I will say
this. To quote my little brother, "what the hell, why deal with that
computer? This is all I need. Grab the cartridge, stick it in, and
you're playing in 3 seconds. No errors. No shit. Screw computer games".

When he said that, it really made me think about it. Sure, I will
never forget the Descent, C&C, and Quake multiplayer LAN games I've had in
the past, but hey, let's face it...consoles rock. And for what? $150?
Sheesh....no comparison. Yeah, I can't read newsgroups on em, but we're
talkin' about GAMES solely. Have a nice day.

Charles Miller Jr.

unread,

Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98

to

>Yeah, I can't read newsgroups on em, but we're
>talkin' about GAMES solely.

Actually, we aren't even talking about games at all. If you based a system
on games, IMHO the really important issue, then it is left up heavily to
opinion and taste. Price is a lot better issue. The N64 costs a hell of a
lot less, but you get a hell of a lot less. (SGI in a box? please. People
who say that obiously haven't used an SGI. :) ) Now, power is a totally
disjointed and diferent issue. High end PC easily. No question about it.
I don't see where the big debate is coming from other than crushed toes of
some people, spelling flames of others, and (the perinial favorite) arguing
off topic issues to make it look like you have somthing to add.

Charles Doane

unread,

Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98

to

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but really, Pot-Kettle-Black,
that's one of your sayings. You aren't talking about games either. I agree
with the point about the software (games) being the important issue, and the
N64 has them. Not a LOT of them, I'll admit, but enough to justify $150. I
spent nearly that just to play MechWarrior 2 on PlayStation, a $70 controller
(Dual Analog Joystick), a $50 game, and a $25 Memory card. The price isn't
the issue at all, the games are. Games are a subjective thing, and price isn't a
subjective topic.
--
eppur si muove... 'and yet it does move'... Galileo,
after recanting his assertion of the Earth's motion.

Sam Shank

unread,

Apr 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/17/98

to

> Alright, w/o diagressing into this issue too much again, I will say
> this. To quote my little brother, "what the hell, why deal with that
> computer? This is all I need. Grab the cartridge, stick it in, and
> you're playing in 3 seconds. No errors. No shit. Screw computer games".

A men.

I don't own a PEE CEE, and never will. I will never know the 'joy' of
installing, tweaking sound cards, graphics cards, drives, etc. It seems
like 1/2 the time of using a PEE CEE is configuring it to play. The rest
is spent playing, if you have any energy left, that is.

That's why I own a console. Cheaper, too.

--
Sam Shank Dept. of Biochemistry CWRU

by using this email address for unsolicited 'spam' and other email you agree to pay me a nominal fee of $5.00.

Tanpha

unread,

Apr 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/19/98

to

In article <sbegonia-170...@bioc38991.bioc.cwru.edu>
sbeg...@hotmail.com (Sam Shank) wrote:

>> Alright, w/o diagressing into this issue too much again, I will say
>> this. To quote my little brother, "what the hell, why deal with that
>> computer? This is all I need. Grab the cartridge, stick it in, and
>> you're playing in 3 seconds. No errors. No shit. Screw computer games".
>
> A men.
>
> I don't own a PEE CEE, and never will. I will never know the 'joy' of
> installing, tweaking sound cards, graphics cards, drives, etc. It seems
> like 1/2 the time of using a PEE CEE is configuring it to play. The rest
> is spent playing, if you have any energy left, that is.
>
> That's why I own a console. Cheaper, too.
>

Well,

I've really heard enough. I am wondering, do people REALLY have that much trouble running games on
PC? I can honestly say I DON'T. Let me first say that I build my own computer, so I know pretty much
everything about which IRQ/DMA/SLOT the cards/MB uses. I have 32MB, with 629K BASE free in DOS.
I don't have any problem running DOS games, and all my Win95 games are pretty much "insert-
and-play" .. Now, I CAN'T be the ONLY one with no PC games problem here.... can I? :)

elizabeth & chris

unread,

Apr 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/19/98

to

Tanpha wrote:

> It seems
> like 1/2 the time of using a PEE CEE is configuring it to play. The rest
> is spent playing, if you have any energy left, that is.
>
> That's why I own a console. Cheaper, too.
>
Well,
I've really heard enough. I am wondering, do people REALLY have that much trouble running games on
PC? I can honestly say I DON'T. Let me first say that I build my own computer, so I know pretty much
everything about which IRQ/DMA/SLOT the cards/MB uses. I have 32MB, with 629K BASE free in DOS.
I don't have any problem running DOS games, and all my Win95 games are pretty much "insert-
and-play" .. Now, I CAN'T be the ONLY one with no PC games problem here.... can I? :)

You're forgetting something. There is a broad spectrum of computer users. Not all of them are at your level.
Let's call where you are 95/100. There are a few people above you who write operating systems and put mainframes together.
Let's call where I am 85/100. I can usuall resolve most problems with a game via software, but I never bothered putting a machine together myself. I don't mess with Partition Magic, etc. My job entails making sure things work once the machine is already together. If the machine is goofed, I call the MIS. (The MIS said if I would apply myself, I could learn everything he does, but that's next year)

Then, there are the people who use computers at work, but never have to fool with them. These people are between 40 and 60. (Big giant chunk of the bell curve.)
When they buy one for at home, where is the MIS? (Of course the MIS and I get calls at home for this sort of thing, which is hard to bill the boss for.)
More than half the time, they've been snookered into a full-on W95 machine which comes with no DOS drivers at all. (Why can't I play this simple little DOS game? What do you mean I don't have enough memory? The thing's got 64 megs in it! Why can't it find my CD-Rom Drive? It was there a minute ago!)
I usually tell these people to either a) get Windows games only or b) buy a console system for their kids to play on if there is a specific game in question.
If they don't find that acceptable, I then ask the famous question.
"Will that be cash, check, or charge?"

Chris
P.S. Why did someone cross-post the $#!% out of this message? Man!

MAD

unread,

Apr 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/19/98

to

On 19 Apr 1998 08:34:29 GMT, Tan...@hotmail.com (Tanpha) wrote:

>In article <sbegonia-170...@bioc38991.bioc.cwru.edu>
>sbeg...@hotmail.com (Sam Shank) wrote:
>
>>> Alright, w/o diagressing into this issue too much again, I will say
>>> this. To quote my little brother, "what the hell, why deal with that
>>> computer? This is all I need. Grab the cartridge, stick it in, and
>>> you're playing in 3 seconds. No errors. No shit. Screw computer games".
>>
>> A men.
>>
>> I don't own a PEE CEE, and never will. I will never know the 'joy' of

>> installing, tweaking sound cards, graphics cards, drives, etc. It seems

>> like 1/2 the time of using a PEE CEE is configuring it to play. The rest
>> is spent playing, if you have any energy left, that is.
>>
>> That's why I own a console. Cheaper, too.
>>
>
>Well,
>
>I've really heard enough. I am wondering, do people REALLY have that much trouble running games on
>PC? I can honestly say I DON'T. Let me first say that I build my own computer, so I know pretty much
>everything about which IRQ/DMA/SLOT the cards/MB uses. I have 32MB, with 629K BASE free in DOS.
>I don't have any problem running DOS games, and all my Win95 games are pretty much "insert-
>and-play" .. Now, I CAN'T be the ONLY one with no PC games problem here.... can I? :)
>
>

Yes people really have that much trouble sometimes. Hell I did'nt have
a computer for 6 months because my box fried my hardrive. So I said
screw it got a playstation, and now that my computer is fixed I don't
have to scramble around to get a game to work, or spend 400$ every
other month just so I can play the newest games.

MAD

unread,

Apr 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/19/98

to

On 17 Apr 1998 18:05:18 GMT, sbeg...@hotmail.com (Sam Shank) wrote:

>> Alright, w/o diagressing into this issue too much again, I will say
>> this. To quote my little brother, "what the hell, why deal with that
>> computer? This is all I need. Grab the cartridge, stick it in, and
>> you're playing in 3 seconds. No errors. No shit. Screw computer games".
>
>A men.
>
>I don't own a PEE CEE, and never will. I will never know the 'joy' of
>installing, tweaking sound cards, graphics cards, drives, etc. It seems
>like 1/2 the time of using a PEE CEE is configuring it to play. The rest
>is spent playing, if you have any energy left, that is.
>
>That's why I own a console. Cheaper, too.

Well After your done tweaking your pc you have to get it faster and
run a million benchmarks to figure out how to get quake up to 95 fps
so you can tell your freinds. After that you then have to buy a new
motherboard cause while overclocking your cpu you melted everything.
And then when you finally sit down and play the game it's boring cause
something new just came out that won't run on your new $2000 dollar
paperweight. Sorry but for games pc's=frustration.

Charles Miller Jr.

unread,

Apr 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/19/98

to

>I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but really,
Pot-Kettle-Black,
>that's one of your sayings. You aren't talking about games either.

No shit. Did you read the post? Thread? No? Didn't think so.

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

On 19 Apr 1998 08:34:29 GMT, Tan...@hotmail.com (Tanpha) wrote:

>Well,
>
>I've really heard enough. I am wondering, do people REALLY have that much trouble running games on
>PC? I can honestly say I DON'T. Let me first say that I build my own computer, so I know pretty much
>everything about which IRQ/DMA/SLOT the cards/MB uses. I have 32MB, with 629K BASE free in DOS.
>I don't have any problem running DOS games, and all my Win95 games are pretty much "insert-
>and-play" .. Now, I CAN'T be the ONLY one with no PC games problem here.... can I? :)
>

Most definately, NO.

I haven't had a problem with ANY of my PC games since I had to free up
17 MB or so to play X-Wing a few years back..

Charles Miller Jr.

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

>Why not just get a Mac. : )

>Oh no, a thousand flames will cometh this way. The _only_ argument
>against that is that Mac's are more expensive and have less games. Oh
>well.

Only? Really... :)
Less options is one, since it is hardly an open platform.
Less software.
Less OS choices.
Less etc.

MAC is one of the most powerful cpu's in the game, but its OS eats all that
up.

But, anyway, I wash my hands of this... No more spam from me on the MAC/PC
stuff.

Phoenix Gamma

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

yOn Sun, 19 Apr 1998, MAD wrote:

> Well After your done tweaking your pc you have to get it faster and
> run a million benchmarks to figure out how to get quake up to 95 fps
> so you can tell your freinds. After that you then have to buy a new
> motherboard cause while overclocking your cpu you melted everything.
> And then when you finally sit down and play the game it's boring cause
> something new just came out that won't run on your new $2000 dollar

> paperweight. Sorry but for games pc's=frustration.

That is, assuming Windows or whatever OS is running doesn't cause an
internal error whilst the game is running, causing a system roboot. Yes,
PC gaming is a pain in the behind. How anyone can prefer or extol this
method over the ease and simplicity of consoles is beyond me.

-me

Charles Miller Jr.

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

I don't know who really is. PC? More power... all I think many of us said.
Consoles? Easy of use? Hell yeah. But what I find VERY ammusing is the
muffs who try to over do their points as far as PC = frustration etc. The
previous poster was talking about getting to MOST power out of a system. He
is talking about power beyond the necessity. He is so bogus, but it is
suprising how many people will jump onto that ignorant bandwagon. Sure, PCs
are going to be more complicated, but I don't think anyone (in their right
mind) would actually argue that a console has the power, or even close, of
the PC. There is little to argue about, unless someone doesn't know what
they are talking about. PC, more power. No contest. Console, ease of use.
No contest. Games? Now, that is something your could argue about, but it
is opinion.

Phoenix Gamma wrote in message ...

Phoenix Gamma

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Charles Miller Jr. wrote:

> I don't know who really is. PC? More power... all I think many of us said.
> Consoles? Easy of use? Hell yeah. But what I find VERY ammusing is the
> muffs who try to over do their points as far as PC = frustration etc.

Now, now, Charly, no need to resort to namecalling. We're having a
civilised discussion here. Please... :>

> The
> previous poster was talking about getting to MOST power out of a system. He
> is talking about power beyond the necessity.

I don't care what he was talking about. I was talking about the ease and
accessibility of consoles/PCs in terms of gaming. I used the thread to
add my two cents and add an alternative slant to the subject.

> He is so bogus, but it is
> suprising how many people will jump onto that ignorant bandwagon.

All I did was make a point. I don't think I was jumping onto any
bandwagons. It isn't against the law for somebody to disagree with you
once in a while.

> Sure, PCs
> are going to be more complicated, but I don't think anyone (in their right
> mind) would actually argue that a console has the power, or even close, of
> the PC.

I never stated otherwise. I may have hinted at skepticism with PCs as
being a sound gaming platform, and I stand by what I said. PCs are good,
solid machines for what they do, but for gaming, they're just too
unstable. And to attain the level of hardware power you hint at, they
require lots of money.

> There is little to argue about, unless someone doesn't know what
> they are talking about.

Exactly.

> PC, more power. No contest. Console, ease of use.
> No contest. Games? Now, that is something your could argue about, but it
> is opinion.

Opinion. Key word there.

-me

Kyle...just Kyle

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

Phoenix Gamma wrote in message ...

>yOn Sun, 19 Apr 1998, MAD wrote:
>
>> Well After your done tweaking your pc you have to get it faster and
>> run a million benchmarks to figure out how to get quake up to 95 fps
>> so you can tell your freinds. After that you then have to buy a new
>> motherboard cause while overclocking your cpu you melted everything.
>> And then when you finally sit down and play the game it's boring cause
>> something new just came out that won't run on your new $2000 dollar
>> paperweight. Sorry but for games pc's=frustration.
>
>

>That is, assuming Windows or whatever OS is running doesn't cause an
>internal error whilst the game is running, causing a system roboot. Yes,
>PC gaming is a pain in the behind. How anyone can prefer or extol this
>method over the ease and simplicity of consoles is beyond me.

Power. Graphics. A lot of the arguments are suspiciously similar to what
one might say about the N64.

-------------------------
Digital Ages Online independent video games network
http://www.digital-ages.com
--containing:
PSX Unlimited senior editor, news editor
N64 Unlimited mailbag editor
-------------------------

Charles Miller Jr.

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

Phoenix Gamma wrote in message ...

>Now, now, Charly, no need to resort to namecalling. We're having a
>civilised discussion here. Please... :>

Did I call you a name?

>> The
>> previous poster was talking about getting to MOST power out of a system.
He
>> is talking about power beyond the necessity.

>I don't care what he was talking about. I was talking about the ease and
>accessibility of consoles/PCs in terms of gaming. I used the thread to
>add my two cents and add an alternative slant to the subject.

"Alternative" equates to off-topic non-disputed in this case.

>All I did was make a point. I don't think I was jumping onto any
>bandwagons.

Did I say you did? Maybe you are reading too much into my post.

>It isn't against the law for somebody to disagree with you
>once in a while.

Um, now you are exagerating. I never stated it was against to law or
anything close to that metaphorically. That is just something you are
hiding behind in this discussion here. If you are saying that the PC has
less power than a console, then you disagree with me, yes, but you are also
factually wrong. Now, since that is all we were origionally discussing here
there isn't much else to talk about. Ease of use, as you brought up, was
never in debate.

>I never stated otherwise.

Didn't say you did. You are reading too deeply into what I say.

>I may have hinted at skepticism with PCs as
>being a sound gaming platform, and I stand by what I said. PCs are good,
>solid machines for what they do, but for gaming, they're just too
>unstable. And to attain the level of hardware power you hint at, they
>require lots of money.

Once again, that is true, and why I never argued otherwise. But, I find it
very funny how people over exagerate the problems in PC gaming to drive a
point home.

>Exactly.

Or is off topic.

>> PC, more power. No contest. Console, ease of use.
>> No contest. Games? Now, that is something your could argue about, but
it
>> is opinion.

>Opinion. Key word there.

Exactly, but as far as power and ease of use, it is not opinion, but fact.

MAD

unread,

Apr 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/20/98

to

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:51:18 -0400, "Kyle...just Kyle"
<ky...@digital-ages.com> wrote:

>
>Phoenix Gamma wrote in message ...

>>yOn Sun, 19 Apr 1998, MAD wrote:
>>
>>> Well After your done tweaking your pc you have to get it faster and
>>> run a million benchmarks to figure out how to get quake up to 95 fps
>>> so you can tell your freinds. After that you then have to buy a new
>>> motherboard cause while overclocking your cpu you melted everything.
>>> And then when you finally sit down and play the game it's boring cause
>>> something new just came out that won't run on your new $2000 dollar
>>> paperweight. Sorry but for games pc's=frustration.
>>
>>
>>That is, assuming Windows or whatever OS is running doesn't cause an
>>internal error whilst the game is running, causing a system roboot. Yes,
>>PC gaming is a pain in the behind. How anyone can prefer or extol this
>>method over the ease and simplicity of consoles is beyond me.
>
>
>Power. Graphics. A lot of the arguments are suspiciously similar to what
>one might say about the N64.
>

Well in all honesty for me at least consoles are just more fun. Pc's
have better graphics are upscale able and technically better right now
but when I play a playstation game I just have more fun than a pc
game.

It does have a lot to do with configuration problems and other
announces about pc gaming but a few other factors to.

Console games seem to be more polished and a lot less buggy at the
software level. I've never bought or played a playstation game that
was unfinished or almost unplayable from the get go like some pc games
namely daggerfall or a few others most people know of. When I buy a
console game i know itt will work I know I won't need to download
patches or upgrade to get it to run smoother or at all.

The graphics are not that bad and very comparable with pc graphics so
it's not like comparing atari to a pc. I have been on the other side
of the issue but I then spent 2000$ for a new computer only to have
the hardrive get fried so I bought a playstation and didn't have a
computer for 6 months. I'm glad I did or I would have missed out on a
lot of fun.

Phoenix Gamma

unread,

Apr 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/21/98

to

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Kyle...just Kyle wrote:

> Power. Graphics. A lot of the arguments are suspiciously similar to what
> one might say about the N64.

When I first pitched in with this comment, I was referring to the
benefits of consoles in general, not just the N64.

unread,

Apr 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/22/98

to

you're inferior, because Charles Miller Jr. (cwmi...@uiuc.edu) wrote:
| >Why not just get a Mac. : )

| MAC is one of the most powerful cpu's in the game, but its OS eats all that
| up.

one word: linux.

(oh wait, this is about playing games. damn. uh, nethack anyone?)

| But, anyway, I wash my hands of this... No more spam from me on the MAC/PC
| stuff.

ditto, unless i can find more posts to make pointless stupid non sequiters
(sp) about.

--

-- neko *meow*

"capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things
you didn't have a good answer to." -- douglas adams

Alexander J Antonio

unread,

Apr 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/24/98

to

In rec.games.video.sega Jared <zach...@mailhost1.csusm.edu> wrote:

> Power and graphics are meaningless though, if there is shoddy play control
> and the pain of configuration.

Bad gameplay/control is a result of the game's design, not the
platform it's on. And I have yet to have any problems with my PC's
configuration. Well, I did have problems with WCP, but that's because my
CD-ROM died. ^_^