Mine has changed to the PC because I am really starting to hate having to buy a new system every 5 years. Also, PC games are cheaper than console games, and I believe generally have more depth. I don't like handhelds anymore because I don't want to buy another system. The PC never changes, for the most part the older games are "backwards compatible" on the newer machines.

More boring? PC games are more boring? I think that the PC games have far more depth than the handheld systems at least! And besides, isn't the fun factor of the game what matters, instead of the graphics?

NOTHING can match the Wii60!!! TREMBLE BEFORE IT!!! lmao.

nice--you have 5000.


360, all the way. no doubt about it. and just consoles in general

If I was truly mad, I would not be making such a rational arguement.
What makes PC games "not fun"?
Everyone's a console person it seems.

N64 and some Gamecube graphics are terrible, but that doesn't make them any less fun. And it depends on the kind of computer one has. My computer is a few years old, so I cannot play most of the latest games on it. But the ones I can are fun. I like PC games also because they have better RPG's. (I'm sure some of you 360/PS3 people will disagree)

I think FF is the only negligible RPG that could stand up to PC over all. besides that, you are completely correct. PC rules the RPG genre.

Hmmm... hard one for me.

I love my PSP because I can watch movies on it and play music. I can also play the NES, SNES, N64, Gameboy, GBC, GBA, PSOne, and PSp games on it.

But I do love my Wii. I would say I enjoy Consoles overall more...but the PSP is great at what it does.

Graphics don't make a game.
I would not agree that a system with better graphics would be a better system overall. The company making the system simply made better graphics a higher priority. And all of the people who work on these consoles make them the best they can be, if for no other reason that good systems make more money.

That statement couldn't be anymore false. Good graphics by no means shows that hey put a whole lot of effort into developing a game. All it means is when creating a game console they spent more money on hardware. For instance look at the Burger King games. If you were to compare the graphics of those games to those of some good Wii games the graphics are still good. Does that mean that the game is good? No...it was a third party title put together for advertising and to cash in a little extra money on the side.

Overall I would say graphics are nothing if gameplay stinks and good graphics does not mean they put a lot of work into a game.

Yes, they do that because graphics are part of the game, just not the most important part!:wink:

I definately do agree that graphics do matter. But are also incredibally overrated. I don't think that everything needs to look as realistic as trendy games do nowdays.

I'm perfectly happy with my decent quality 60 frames per second (fps) wii games.

I think that graphics should add to the experience, and are useful as part of the overall product, but are a complement to the game. Kind of like the special effects in movies today.
Graphics accentuate and enhance the story.



I love my 60 fps Metroid Prime, and that's from 2002. That game is a prime example of my arguement.

I would buy a PS3 because it has some pretty decent games. i.e Oblivion, Rock Band, CoD 4, Resistance fall of Man, Ratchet and Clank, Devil May Cry 4...just to name a very few. And it has free Wifi internet play, good graphics and a Blue Ray Dvd Player. (a good blu ray player will cost you a few hundred dollars the way it is)

I like interactive gaming. But I do like more "hardcore" gamer games. The Wii has a fairshare but the PS3 has many more. The 360 is good but paying for live is a turnoff for me.

Yeah, the thing that bugs me the most about Nintendo is that they have a history of not gearing as many games towards older gamers. That does make me angry sometimes, because the other systems have Halo, and other games of that nature.

Yeah, and the 360 has most of those, and Halo, only rachet, Resistance, not sure about devil may cry, are not for 360. and $4 bucks a month is nothing, since so many more people play Xbox over PS3

ya the graphis are the mostly the best if it didnt have no good graphics it would be bad

also the PS3 has a blu ray DVD player. Those are spendy in themselves.

Especially since it looks like Blue-Ray may have won the platform war.
Another bone to pick with Nintendo, but I can do without it if it means the price is lower.

hmmmmm... I'm torn 'tween Wii and PS3 cause Wii is the best thing since "sliced bread" (Prime,Coruption) but PS3 has all the games I want (Heavenly sword, Elder Scrolls IV, devil may cry 4, and asasions creed)

i like consoles better cus they tend to have better graghics and you dont need to have 2 systems to play 2 player

I disagree on both points: With a high end computer, the new PC games out now look better than 360/PS3 games. And with an internet connection, you can play those games with tons of people online, with a full screen.

BUT u still need more then one pc to play muilt player... the only thing a pc is good for are MMO's and that is IT!

MMO's are multiplayer.
You need more than one XBox for Live, as well.
And regular multiplayer games are annoying, because the screen is split, and you can only play with a few people. There are exceptions, of course, like SSBM, etc.

LOL!!! You do realize that the PC from a technical aspect can handle way more memory or graphics wise than any console out there in any game genre. Also in professional gaming a mouse is preffered anyday to an analog stick.

... what's that have to do with what i said?

I think he is challenging your point that PC's are only good for MMO's.
PC's also rule the RPG genre, as said earlier.

arn't MMOs also RPG hence MMORPG

ok he has made his point... but still... it's the same general bases

No, you're right. Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, and Halo are all examples of MMO's, but they are by no stretch of the imagination RPGs.

KOTOR, Final Fantasy, Runescape are MMORPG's

edit: General bases?

it means for the most part they are the same thing...

MMO's and MMORPG's? I see what you mean, they're both with tons of people, but I disagree. It's an academic point anyways.

I prefer computers only because I'm tired of trying to keep up with all the new consoles. I love handheld games, but theyre not very in depth and the graphics suck. A lot of games are actually better on the PC anyway. Sims, for example, has tons of expansions and downloads that you can only get on the PC. You can have more than one sim and its alot easier to control things. Then there are also online games. Im not experienced enough in online console gaming, but Im pretty sure you can't talk to someone that's in Israel when you're in the USA. As for driving games, you can by a usb steering wheel and for a lot of other games, a joystick is always helpful. The only "upgrading" you need is when your computer's too slow to run the new games, and by then you need a new one anyway

_l_ i think the debate is over *walks away* never expected some one to come up with that for an answer... any other opinions?