The One Where I Earn the Undying Enmity of Every PC Gamer

by Gabriel Shelnutt , COMMUNITY WRITER

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Editor's note: Gabriel, fed up with his struggles to get a couple of games running on his new midrange laptop, lays out why he prefers console gaming to PC gaming. I disagree with his statement that Valve is the only studio making good games for the PC. A number of great PC games -- the real-time strategy gem A.I. War: Fleet Command, the action-RPG Torchlight, to name a couple -- not only are great PC-exclusive titles, but they should also run on your laptop as well. -Jason

June 2009

A couple of days ago, a new guy showed up at work. He made a random joke about his military service not being on "veteran" difficulty. I immediately knew that one of my own had entered the fold. True enough, under the layers of body armor and extra magazines, lay the heart of a serious geek.

I didn't know exactly how much until I saw his work desk, where 30 or 40 unfinished Warhammer 40K figurines awaited modification. He also claimed to be that most rare of gaming geeks: the PC gamer. I'm not talking the occasional bout of Team Fortress or Counter-Strike. He has no consoles -- and talks trash about them to boot.

Although I smiled and ignored his rants like I would any crazy person on the street, I've really wanted to get back into PC gaming. It's always had a level of complexity that consoles have yet to grasp, and between that and many, many fond years of Civilization, Starcraft, Fallout, and countless other games, I knew I had to give it one last shot.

I purchased a laptop a few weeks back. It's not an Alienware machine or anything, but it's a solid midrange system. (2 GHz Intel Core Duo, 9600m graphics card, 4GB RAM). I needed a laptop, and I shelled out $1,200 to get it. I know that a computer serves many other purposes than gaming, chief among them Internet applications (porn), work stuff (lists of girls you've shagged), and chatting/social networking (cybersex). But any garden-variety $400 laptop accomplishes these with aplomb.

What does that extra $800 cover? You got it -- games. Would we agree that tacking on an extra $800 should get you at least moderate performance from current games? I say yes, considering that even at their most expensive price, the two current consoles cost half that.

The geek coworker gave me a copy of Crysis: Warhead and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. Now, before you stop me and say "Gabe, Crysis bogs down a Department of Defense supercomputer!" remember that the sequel carries the promise of running well on a midrange machine, and this was almost a year ago. I popped Warhead in my drive and started installing and waited. And waited.

Ten minutes later the install program had yet to show even a sliver of color in the progress bar. (And for those of you in the know, I have UAC disabled). I slid the laptop over and fired up Street Fighter 4. I then proceeded to play arcade mode with Dhalsim on medium difficulty. (And yes, I needed many continues).

As I landed the last punch, winning by a margin akin to the hair on my ass, Warhead finished its installation. This is just a really geeky way of saying it took 45 minutes to install the game. Oh, but there's more! We can't have installation without DRM, can we? Yes, that's right -- the game won't even *play* without registering online. If this were a console, I would be halfway through the second level of the game. Console 1, PC 0

After a load time of approximately 2 minutes to 3 minutes (which on a console release would result in the game being critically lambasted, the studio dissolved, and their families sold into slavery), the game finally appeared. It was indeed beautiful, much like a splendid watercolor. I say watercolor because the result was a slideshow sputtering at approximately 2 frames to 5 frames per second. So, after 20 minutes of trial-and-error reducing and increasing settings, I ended up with a playable game -- one that ran at 1280x768 resolution with low textures and all effects turned off.

So after $1200, an hour or so of install/adjustment, and a level of technical expertise that required Internet research to reach nominal settings, I ended up with something along the lines of a first-generation Xbox 360 game -- running at about 35 FPS. If this were a console, it would be running at 1080p 30-60 FPS with all effects, and I'd be done with the third level. Consoles 2, PC 0

The game is actually quite good, but since it was designed to be played with all of the graphical flourishes, certain elements are decidedly harder. Without effects, you don't have tracers to track back to the soldiers attacking you. With low resolution, picking the soldiers out of muddy textures is next to impossible. It feels like going back in time, and all of this for four times the expense.

Staying true to my quest, I installed Red Alert 3. The process was quite similar to Warhead. Seth fell to the Crimson Tornado, and EA wanted confirmation. Red Alert 3 does not use anything terribly new; it uses a highly modified version of the Generals engine (a game released 5 years ago), and yet putting the settings at anything over midrange resulted in my forces moving like they were covered in syrup. After more adjustment, I ended up with something that looked like a slight graphical upgrade to Generals.

This game was released for the 360 as well, and while it's inferior gameplaywise, it looks far better than what was playing on my computer. I prefer real-time strategy on a PC; it's almost impossible to present RTS games on a console with any kind of sophistication (unless the cats who made EndWar manage to upgrade their game to match the sophistication of their voice-recognition software). But, again, I don't want to have a shell out $2000 every two years to be able to play an RTS the way it's meant to be played.

Final tally: Consoles 3, PC 0

What did I learn? I left PC gaming for a reason. It's frustrating, expensive, and ultimately unsatisfying. The only really good PC games coming out these days are Valve products, which you can play on your 360 (although admittedly not equal at least in terms of TF2). I'm not saying I might take a stroll down memory lane if something tremendous comes out, but for the moment I'm hanging up my WASD keys.

(64)

Comments (64)

Dan "Shoe" Hsu

January 08, 2010

This is hilarious. Very well-written, too! I want to see what PC gamers have to say about it. :)

David Matos

January 08, 2010

This is hands down one of my favorite articles on bitmob. The most intense arguments and discussions I have ever gotten into about gaming were PC vs Console topics.

Myself, a console gamer my whole life thought PCs were weird and strnage for gaming. Once I reached University, the majority of my gamer friends were PC gamers holding regular CS:S tourneys and TF2 nights. I tried to get into that culture and they helped me out with some research and all that and I could never justify dropped almost $1000 for a gaming rig. I agree with you that Valve is really the only company that is worth getting a PC for but even then not worth the investment both in leaning all the aspects of gaming PCs and the cost.

Plus most of the PC gamers I meet offline and online are self righteous douches who think their resolution is equivalent to the length of their penis so PC gamers and their attitude also make me shy away from that.

Jason Wilson

January 08, 2010

"Were this a console, it would be running at 1080p 30-60 FPS."

Um...how many games actually run at 1080p on a console?

PC gaming is a great hobby. You really don't need a $2,000 rig every two years to enjoy it. I sub out parts incrementally (this year is videocard and power supply), and the money that I save on the incredible sales on digital downloads pays for the upgrades I make.

As for load and install times...umm...maybe it's time you learned some patience? The world is too convenient as it is today, and far too many people expect things to be delivered instantly. Nothing's wrong with waiting for something good. It's like ramen -- you can by the cheap crap in the package, or you can either make or buy some fresh noodles and make your own. Same goes for pizza or just about any food.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 08, 2010

Eh....i'm a console gamer first and foremost. I have a PC but I mostly only use it for TF2 and for cheapo but awesome games like torchlight and plants vs zombies. High end PC gaming is fundimentally impossible for me because I haven't the patience for all the tech bullshit required and even the small upgrades I would need to make to my computer are beyond my means.

Unlike Jason, I don't believe that the level of hoops you have to run through in order to play high level PC games is defensible by just saying 'have more patience.' Very few people in the world have the patience to put up with even half the bullshit PC gamers put up with. That's why consoles are doing better in the game market these days.

If you are a hardcore PC gamer then I'm sure PC gaming provides impressive experiences, but consoles and games you can run on a cheap ass laptop are where gaming reaches mass market. You honestly can't defend hardcore PC gaming as being the 'best' because a persons consumer experience being as negative as PCs can get offsets many percieved benefits. Both have their pros and cons but PC gamers are just going to have to learn to admit that consoles are stealing popularity and developers away from PCs for a reason. More people play consoles.

Jason Wilson

January 08, 2010

@Jeffrey A little patience makes just about everything in life better, gaming included. Think about sitting on a beach, waiting for the sun to set and turn the sky into a fantastic show. That doesn't happen immediately.

My main point is that Americans lack patience, and I feel a little patience would help many of us appreciate much more in life.

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 09, 2010

Jason, I appreciate your comments about patience--and if my patience were rewarded with a top-tier experience then I would be more than willing to jump through hoops for the end experience. The point I was making was that even with waiting the overall experience with PC gaming is *still* inferior overall in comparison to consoles. Since consoles are a proprietary platform rather than the infinite combination of parts and manufacturers that PCs are saddled with, the games can be optimized for the platform--thus enabling you to push $300 worth of hardware to do something my $1200 laptop is incapable of. I spent years upgrading and tooling with settings, and I wish I had the time and money to continue, but as I get older I enjoy being able to press "power" and "close" and have my experience ready to go. You are correct that not all console games run at 1080p, but a large number of current 360 games do--regardless the fact remains that you can't build a computer for $300 that can match a console, much less run games at 1080p.

Jason Wilson

January 09, 2010

@Gabriel We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not the best shooter player around, but I can't imagine playing one without a keyboard and mouse. Ditto for a RPG or any strategy game -- not enough keys. Plus, you're limited on modding options, and that's my favorite aspect of PC gaming. Star Wars: Empire at War is a decent real-time strategy title, but with the improvements that modders made, it's a much better game. I don't want some developer to tell me how to play -- I want to make the experience my own, and PCs allow me to do that. Consoles barely do.

Jason Venter

January 09, 2010

Jason, you've named a lot of reasons that make PC gaming an ideal experience for you. I won't argue with them, because for you they're valid. However, they're not valid for a lot of gamers. I don't want to build my own experience within someone else's game. If I'm going to take the time to build my own experience, I'll do it from scratch so I can get more out of it. I won't spend a lot of time on customization screens, either, whether the game in question ships for PC or console. I want to pop a game in and play it and enjoy it. Is that impatient? Yes, of course it is. As an American, though, I guess that's how I have to be. There are too many things vying for my time and attention. If I have to spend 2 or 3 hours installing and perfecting a game so that it will run on my system, that's three hours that I don't have to experience--and enjoy--something else.

The incremental PC upgrades that some PC gamers endorse are also ridiculous. You have to spend a lot of time to really get to know your computer before you can confidently purchase parts like that without worrying about compatability issues and the like. It's too much work and the only reward is that I can play 2 or 3 neat games a year. I'd rather spend that same energy and play 20 or 30 neat games on my consoles for less money and with less effort. That doesn't necessarily make me impatient or even American. It makes me normal.

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 10, 2010

@Jason I felt very much the same as you did prior to the 360 coming out. I still feel like I have more precise control with a mouse and keyboard, but as time has worn on I find my controls to be sufficient, especially considering everyone I'm playing is using the same. You bring up a good point about the mod scene, but as we have seen with Modern Warfare 2 the decline of dedicated private servers will bring that to a halt as well, at least as far as multiplayer mods are concerned. I actually mention the inferiority of console RTS games at the end of my article, but as I mention in my article I don't feel that one genre justifies that large of an expenditure of money and time. Thanks for the comments and compliments everyone!

Jason Wilson

January 11, 2010

Gabriel: One space after a period, please, not two. The "two spaces rule" is obsolete. It was designed for typewriters; the extra space was needed at the end of a sentence due to the spacing of characters on most typewriters. But that problem doesn't exist with today's fonts and PCs.

Garret Staus

January 11, 2010

Interesting article. As a console gamer who would have answered this article a year ago with a resounding "Hurrah!", I now have to sit here and defend your claims because I, unlike you, have found PC gaming to be far superior to consoles.

The biggest flaw in this entire argument is that you wanted a gaming machine and went for a laptop, and not a desktop. A $1200 laptop is not only the price of a machine, but also the price of a display (how much has your TV costed you at home?) and the luxury of portability (you can't play your 360 on an airplane). Had you bought a desktop, you could have bought a machine that would have been 5 times more powerful for half the price. The main reason here is the GPU - you just can't fit in a quality GPU into a laptop no matter how hard you try. There are too many cores and too much heat dissipation in an even average GPU to snuggle into a laptop. It's one big reason why consoles are as large as they are. I bought my gaming desktop for less than 700 dollars - not bad considering all the other functionality I get out of it. Buying a desktop would have greatly limited your spending amount, and I assure you that it'd run any game you throw at it, Crysis or otherwise.

Install times are a bit of a bummer, I'll concede - a decent desktop with a 7200rpm hard drive (most hard drives these days) can install a game in about 5 minutes. Honestly I am not sure what was taking 45 minutes on your system, but that is certainly not typical of an average gaming system. Installing a game on a 360 or PS3 takes about an equivalent amount of time.

Having recently got into TF2, I can vouch for the absolute benefit of having a mouse+keyboard for controls. I played L4D on my buddy's console the other day and it was awful - I hadn't realized how much better m+k is until I had to go back. Also way more beneficial for RTS's, like you hit on. Dedicated servers (while declining, they certainly won't be gone for any time soon) are a fantastic perk. I've recently started my own server with some friends (plug: http://www.mavgaming.com), and it's an absolute blast. Not having that customization would truly be a bummer.

I understand your sentiments, but I think you make a lot of over generalizations - especially in terms of cost. The days of needing a $2000 gaming rig are over as the price of computer parts continues to decline. If you want a PORTABLE gaming rig that can run anything, like you seem to do in this article, than certainly you will be paying more. But if that is the case, I don't think comparing to consoles becomes relevant anymore.

Mark Collins

January 11, 2010

Gabriel, I can appreciate your frustration, but you need to understand a couple things:

1) A 9600M mobile graphics chip is most certainly not "mid-range". It is somewhat comparable to the 9600-desktop series, which was mid-range nearly 2 years ago. Definitely not "mid-range" now, two years later. Gaming on laptops can be an expensive proposition unless you want to turn everything down to minimum settings.

If you really want to play games on a laptop, you have to stick with Source Engine-powered games as the top-end. There are hundreds of amazing games to choose from that are extremely enjoyable to play on a laptop, and it's very short-sighted to think that the top-end of the top-end benchmark would be the way to go.

On the other hand, a desktop built two years ago for $900 from bottom-to-top handles Crysis well at High detail settings.

I don't have first-hand experience with Red Alert 3, but the C&C; games have always pushed graphics, at least for RTSs. I highly doubt that the 360 version does anything more than comparable Medium settings on PC. That was definitely true with C&C; 3 - a game I've actually played and seen on both platforms.

About the install times and DRM issues - that is precisely why so many PC gamers are turning to digital distribution. It's true that you have longer up-front download times, but the installation is handled completely automatically, you don't need to bother with patches, and it's far more convenient.

After getting 10+ games during the Steam holiday sale, it was completely painless to download all of them overnight. When I woke up, there they were, waiting for me to simply double-click and play. 80+ gigabytes downloaded, installed, and ready to go.

Absolutely beautiful. :)

Sean Beanland

January 11, 2010

I have to agree with Garret Staus. It's unreasonable to expect to play games with a high level of visual fidelity on most laptops. The video cards they put in there are woefully inadequate. The 9600M in your machine may be better than Intel integrated graphics, but not by much. Your post in the comments about wanting a top-tier experience is unreasonable given the hardware you purchases, which you yourself described as mid-range.

Secondly, the vast majority of console games today are rendered at 720p or below and then upscaled to 1080p. They can crank up the detail while keeping the resolution low. The majority of console games target 30 FPS, not 60. Many console games that run at 60FPS tout that as a feature because it's not common. Burnout Paradise and Modern Warfare 2 are examples of this.

Like the editor's note states, Torchlight will run excellently on that laptop. So will World of Warcraft, if that's your thing. But games like Crysis Warhead are targeted at high-end desktop PCs. Your laptop is the equivalent of a low end gaming desktop.

Nick Bell

January 11, 2010

I agree with what several people said above: comparing a laptop to a console simply isn't fair. At a simple cost comparison, you would need to at least include your TV. And you are simply not getting your money's worth trying to game on a laptop. They are not designed for it, due to the need for head dissipation, power conservation, etc.

I recently bought an off-the-shelf, pre-built HP, put a real video card in it, and it will run any game I know of at full settings, all for about half the cost of your laptop. I am sure a more hardcore PC player would be able to build his/her own for less money and get more power.

All that said, you are definitely right in your choice of console gaming. It is obvious that PC gaming is no longer for you, and its always best to pursue the experience you enjoy most.

Kai Su

January 11, 2010

As someone who plays games on both consoles (I own all 3 current-generation systems) and PC (a mid-range desktop with an OCed Phenom II and a HD4890), I definitely agree that PC gaming has it's issues. But I also think the comparison you did is not really a fair one.

Consoles provide a better average gaming experience, it's true. PCs, on the other hand, cover a much wider range - it can provide a better experience if you have a high-end system, but can also be nearly unplayable on the low-end. But by using a laptop as your basis of comparison, you're already shifting the experience downward. I understand that laptops are more popular these days, but it's still not a very fair comparison - the fact that it's portable means tradeoffs in performance, price, or both. How much is that portability worth? The PS3/X360, after all, are not at all portable (Ben Heck modded consoles notwithstanding).

Some games lend itself better to PC than consoles. I would rather not play a RTS than play it on a console, because I know that the thought of "I wish I had a mouse and keyboard" would be going through my mind the entire time. And for a, say, Dragon Age: Origins, even on a lower-end PC (I've played it on an old Athlon 64 / 7900GT system), the experience is a much better one than on the 360 simply due to the fact that it was a game designed for PCs. And for MMOs... well, there's really no comparison.

Mark Collins

January 11, 2010

Just to reiterate what I said above - it's very easy to have an enjoyable gaming experience on a laptop. You just have to pick the right games to go along with it. Torchlight, Source Engine games, Telltale's games, masterpieces like Machinarium, tens/hundreds of other independent games, Popcap's games, and more are all perfect candidates.

Saying that "a garden variety $400 laptop"..."What does that extra $800 cover?" is also just not a legitimate complaint. $400 laptops are absolute pieces of crap. Having recently done significant research to find a good work laptop (integrated graphics, no gaming at all), you have to spend at least $700 if you want something high-quality with great battery life.

On the other hand, Alienware announced a "gaming netbook" for under $1000 at CES which sounds more promising, and ASUS has its UL30Jt which seems like it'll do the same thing. Higher-end portable PC gaming definitely seems like it'll be more affordable in time, just not yet.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 11, 2010

Honestly all of this arguing is just tiring to read. We can all agree on a few specific things.

-Consoles have good games
-PCs have good games
-neither has the same selection of good games as the other.
-PCs are higher bar of entry financially and knowledge wise to get the optimum experience but are ahead of the curve technology wise and have a more robust community.
-pc controls are more complex and versitile while console controls are more immediate and tactile.

Both sides have plenty to be excited about, however. Crossover is NOT required nor is it possible for some people. It usually comes down to what you grew up with. Jason probably spent most of his gaming time with PCs and thus likes them a great deal. I personally grew up with consoles and thus I am frustrated by PC controls and the few PC games I play aren't enough to convince me to spend my limited funds and time on a workable full gaming rig. This doesn't warrent an argument. Different strokes for different folks.

This post was Gabriel saying that his personal experience with PC gaming was so negative he was put off. Badgering him for having different tastes isn't going to turn him into a PC gamer it's only going to reinforce his decision to give up on it. So you can either help him in some way to experience PC gaming in a positive way or shut up and let him enjoy what he wants to enjoy. He has a fairly good laptop but it can't play games very well. He's probably not going to spend hundreds of dollars to buy a desktop to fix that problem. A fanboy flame war and could haves and should haves solves nothing and it hasn't solved anything for the countless years this stupid ass debate about which platform's dong is bigger has gone on.

Kai Su

January 11, 2010

Actually, a $400 laptop will be fine for generic tasks, especially if you find one that's on sale in that price range. My folks picked up a decent HP 15" with a Pentium dual-core, 3GB RAM, and Windows 7 Home Premium for less than $400. Sure, the video is integrate and crap, and battery life isn't stellar, but for basic tasks of web surfing, watching DVDs/streaming video, and apps like Office, it works perfectly fine.

But if the author really does believe that a $400 system will do everything he needs a laptop to do other than gaming, then he would've absolutely been better off buying a $400 laptop and then using the $800 difference on a desktop for gaming.

Mark Collins

January 11, 2010

Jeffrey, I think you're misunderstanding what people here are saying. No one is "badgering" him. People are making some very reasonable suggestions. In fact, it seems like your post is the most hostile in this entire thread.

Chosing Crysis as your first game to play an a laptop with a mid-range graphics chip from 2 years ago just isn't a great idea. People pointed that out, and then suggested alternatives like I have done above.

I think a similar example would be to pick Left 4 Dead 2 as your first choice for an Xbox 360 game, yet not having the Gold subscription to go along with it, and wondering what all the hubub is about because of the lack-luster single-player experience. That would screw with your entire impression of the platform. Not a direct comparison, of course, but the same idea of just picking the entirely wrong games to start with instead of matching a game choice with what you're able to do at the time.

Davneet Minhas

January 11, 2010

As Jeff implies, this is the stuff that flame wars are made of on lesser sites.

Spencer Gregory

January 11, 2010

Don't be so discouraged with PC gaming. If the last games you played were Civilization, StarCraft, and Fallout, then there's a solid decade of PC games that your laptop could handle just fine.

Adam Mitchell

January 11, 2010

Hate to say it, but you got screwed on that laptop if you payed $1200 and got a 2 GHz processor. I recently bought an ibuypower(that computer place whose adds were all over EGM) laptop with a 2.8 GHz dual core and 4 GB DDR3(a huge step up from DDR2) for $1200.

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 11, 2010

Hey, thanks for all the comments. I actually wrote this back in July of this year in an email to friends. (The fact that six months later my computer would be considered a "ripoff" at a $1200 price point only serves to bolster my argument) Although I very much appreciate my article getting bumped to the front page, I wish Jason had kept my original statement about what would happen to a console publisher if the game took 2 minutes to load: "which on a console release would result in the game being critically lambasted, the studio dissolved, and their families sold into slavery". Yes, it's hyperbole--but it's *funny*. "Which would result in the game getting critically lambasted" really doesn't have the same punch.

As far as the guys telling me about the unfair comparison, I can appreciate your sentiments. I actually have found ways to play good games on my laptop. I got a great Steam deal on THQ games and have really enjoyed Trine, Dawn of War (ad infinitum), and replaying the Company of Heroes series. I also own Torchlight as well. I didn't stop playing PC after Civ and Fallout, it was more around Battlefield 2 and World in Conflict. But, that said I still feel that PC gaming takes quite a bit more effort than consoles--and I don't care if you order the PC parts from Newegg and build one (which I have) you still end up paying anywhere from 2-3 times the cost of a console for something that will not run current games with all effects at maximum resolution. Point of fact, I bought a Cyberpower tower a couple of years back. I spent $1800 on it (which on Cyberpower gets you quite a lot), and it *still* wouldn't run new games at close to max setttings. Imagine what it is capable of now and you might start to see my point. I bought my 360 shortly after it debuted almost 4 years ago, and I haven't spent a single penny upgrading it short of buying new controllers. I fired up Bayonetta tonight and it ran beautifully. I can't say the same for my newer gaming tower that is 2 years younger. Those are my arguments, and I can't really see how anyone could not understand why I came to that decision. I'm not saying you're an idiot for being a PC gamer, I'm just saying that I've decided to move on. Thanks again!

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 11, 2010

@Jason Sorry about the periods. I learned to type on a typewriter, jesus I'm doing it now! Again sorry, I imagine it was a bear to edit all of those spaces out.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 11, 2010

@ Mark I saw all the attempts to impart information, don't get me wrong. I just also saw this overwhelming feeling that this post was kind of put up as a totem for PC gamers to bash on an anti PC sentiment. Many of the arguments that are put up are things that pretty much any computer literate gamer who visits this site already knows. Most of the games you guys suggested he's already tried and of course he knows that their are computers he could get for cheaper that could work better. None of that is what the article was about, as he states above in his response.

Also, No offense meant to Jason as a professional but I don't think that promoting a post to the front page that you personally contributed a defensive counter argument to was a good move. Gabriel said it lead to changes to the article he wouldn't have quite agreed with and I personally find myself uncomfortable with an editorial bi-line that is largely just another defensive comment that attempts to undermine what is in the article. It might have been a good idea to just continue making your points in the comments and let someone else handle editing and posting the article who doesn't have any stake in the discussion.

Garret Staus

January 11, 2010

I understand your points, Gabriel, I just wanted to make it clear that I think you're qualms with pricing having bought a laptop are a little unjust. Certainly PC gaming requires more time and patience: part of the appeal of PC gaming to a lot of people is the work involved. Building a PC and adding parts to it, for many, is a source of enjoyment. Understandable that not everyone wants to put up with it. Price, however, I feel is not a valid concern.

To address your latest comment:

I don't care if you order the PC parts from Newegg and build one (which I have) you still end up paying anywhere from 2-3 times the cost of a console for something that will not run current games with all effects at maximum resolution.

I whole-heartedly disagree. I could honestly buy you a PC today from $700, maybe $600 that could run Crysis on full settings at 1900x1200. I know because I did it myself. :)

@Jeffery: I think this argument is pretty civil. Nobody is insulting anybody's choices here and everyone is making well-rounded points. It might seem one-sided because in a topic such as this those whom the article was targeting (i.e. PC gamers) are more likely to respond.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 11, 2010

@Garret I understand that you and some other people have no problems with the discussion as it is going on and I don't really claim that my every concern is valid outside of my own perspective but the way people are handling this post is genuinely unsettling to me. I have an inflammitory writing style by nature so try not to read too much into my word choice but I just felt that my concerns warrented expressing. Just like everyone else that's commenting ^.^.

Anthony Ip

January 11, 2010

What you thought was a mid-range device was actually on the low-end for games. When it comes to laptops you need to be looking at something specifically built for gaming, not just the price.

Joe Young

January 11, 2010

If you've got the patience and the care games on pc are the optimal experience. Thats why i play pc games. Yes its more complicated, and yes it can be more expensive (unless you know, or know someone who can upgrade it for you). But the though of playing l4d2 on a 360 is repulsive to me, while i boot it up nightly on Pc.

And sorry man, but you cannot take a 1200 laptop and use it as a comparative gaming device. Laptops do not run games well, unless you shell out far more than 1200.You should have done the research before blindly buying what you thought was a good machine.

I have friends who have bumpin machines built for 400, a comparable price to consoles, with settings on most games turned up to the highest. Count in amazing sales on steam, and if you smartly upgrade your machine you can keep the upgrades to a minimum.

This was actually a good article, but you cant use you blindly jumping into a part of gaming you dont understand as an excuse to be angry when things dont work for you.

Joe Young

January 11, 2010

Also unsatisfying to you doesn't mean they are unsatisfying to others. For me, playing console games is unsatisfying because many pc features are lacking. there is a difference between fact and opinion that you might wanna look into.

Joe Young

January 11, 2010

Aren't lacking, that is

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 11, 2010

@Joe what makes you think what he wrote is even trying to be passed off as pure fact? Bitmob accepts opinion pieces too you know.

@Joshua As a person who bought an Alienware PC I wouldn't recommend it in the least. I don't know if their quality has gone up in the last 3 years or so but when I bought mine it was screwed up out of the box and has never worked quite perfectly since. When I called up their customer support they kept me on the phone for hours at a time testing things that all ended up being dead ends to basically get me to stop trying, and the alienware forums at that point were locked off to the general public, and then when you get inside by buying one the entire forum was full of unsatisfied customers with broken computers that alienware refused to fix or took multiple months to fix.

A high end PC could potentially be worth it. Based off of my personal experience with Alienware, they aren't worth any price.

Shuborno Biswas

January 11, 2010

I split my gaming between 360, PC, and DS.

If you want to jump into PC gaming, you can't jump in half-heartedly. It requires some research, and you don't want to be the type to mind tinkering with settings. A 9600M isn't going to cut it for Crysis, which has its claim to fame as being the franchise that pushes modern computers the hardest. However, for that $1200, you could have purchased a fast enough PC and thrown in a video card that would run Crysis well.

After many years out of the PC game, I bought a laptop to handle it, but it required some waiting for a deal and a lot of research. I eventually got a $900 CDN laptop with 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo (the weak link), 4 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD, and a 1 GB 9800M Nvidia card.

This PC has no problems running games like TF2 and Left 4 Dead completely maxed, Fallout 3 looking better than consoles, etc., but requires some compromises when running Crysis.

I happiest with my PC when I play games suited to the platform (ditto for 360 and DS). Fallout 3 has a lot of menus, so a mouse is nice. TF2 requires the precision of a mouse and keyboard to compete. Plants vs Zombies would be cumbersome without pointing and clicking.

Anything that doesn't benefit from being played on a PC, I'll just get on 360 since all you do is put in a disc and play.

Jason Wilson

January 11, 2010

@Jeffery Doesn't that I'm prepared to promote something I totally disagree with show that I respect the author's points, even if I disagree with them? When it comes to front-page promotion, I don't look just for items I agree with.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 11, 2010

@Jason I know and I respect that you want to promote stuff you disagree with but respect. I just think that if you couldn't keep your disagreement with his post from consuming most of your lead in to the article it is a disservice to the original writer. I personally wouldn't like to have my article posted on the front page at all if the first thing that people see assosiated with it is an editors opinions against it. It does a lot to invalidate the post in the minds of the reader before they even get a chance to read it and decide for themselves. You have every right to do things however you want I just wanted to say my two cents that how you handled this post made me uncomfortable. What you do with that information is up to you.

Chris Cosmo Ross

January 11, 2010

@Jeffrey - My favorite part of Bitmob is how editors promote articles they don't always agree with. Just recently James promoted an article discussing religion when James himself is an atheist.

I really think Bitmob is the only place doing things like this and I think we should be encouraging them to do so. And when the editor promoting the article decides to voice their disagreement, they should be allowed because, hey, it's their website.

Jeremy Watson

January 11, 2010

Well Gabriel, you should have just got Crysis your 360 and skipped the whole rigmarole!

...

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Something to consider about console prices, especially in the beginning of the cycle, is they are heavily subsidized (except for the Wii). For instance, the Xbox cost estimates were between $500-750 to make when it came out (more likely at the high end).
And that was just to make. Imagine if they passed that along to the consumer. You'd be paying $1000-1500 (a conservative markup estimate for manufacture to retail pricing in a competitive electronics market) for an item that only played games, nothing else.

I admit that isnâ€™t particularly relevant, since the console market works on a razor blade model. Sony and Microsoft are more interested in accessory/game sales than making a profit on each console. But consider this scenario:

Say you do not have a console or a computer, and you want to be able to plays games and do day to day computing tasks. You can buy the normal Xbox 360 SKU ($300) plus whatever accessories (letâ€™s not add them in, just for kicks), and then buy the lowest end PC possible. Say either $400 for a laptop or $600 for the lowest end desktop with everything added in (monitor, etc). I am also assuming you do not want to build your own crappy tower.

So, you've just dropped between $700-900, not including a TV. If you want to actually use the HD part of your consoles, add in $300 for the lowest of the low end HDTVs. Youâ€™re up to at least $1000-1200, using the most conservative estimates I feel I can make. And you have a crappy computer, no accessories, and a tiny 720i HDTV.

Or you could spend $1000-1200 and get a quite excellent PC tower with a monitor equivalent to 1080p, a nice mouse and keyboard, and even a cheap gamepad. My fudge here is I assumed you built the tower, but hey considering what I assumed when pricing the console option it seems only fair.

If you want to compare a laptop to a console, then compare it to a portable console that can run the same games. So a gaming laptop running C&C; would compare toâ€¦ the portable Xbox 360 that Ben Heck made (price: â€œabout as much as a used carâ€). Which is hypothetical anyway, since I donâ€™t believe he sells them.

I know I just put on my PC sword and shield there, but I do appreciate consoles as well. I just take issue with the idea that one is inherently better than the other, or that you "move on" from PC to Consoles. I view it as a step sideways, not better or worse, just different. Move to consoles, you spend less on average, don't have to worry as much about stability, can pretty much bet your frame rates will be between 30-60 fps, etc.
You also give up the ability to play certain kinds of games, use a mouse and keyboard, mod your games, etc. If those things arenâ€™t important to you, hey sounds like youâ€™d be perfectly happy with a console! More power to you.

@jeffrey - I second that. Alienware has gone downhill something fierce.

Kevin Pabst

January 11, 2010

I've been a PC gamer since the days of Diablo 1, and I have to agree with you on most points. PC gaming is hard, with the slow installs, the optimizing. Although you didn't run into any problems, fixing problems on the PC can be difficult and time consuming.

I've been PC gaming and doing all the things associated with it for so long that it's practically second nature, and nothing short of the Saboteur for ATI cards simply NOT WORKING AT ALL will give me any trouble. Luckily, that only seems to happen every three months. The last game that was that absolutely broken (that I remember) was GTA4, which was so buggy and poorly optimized that Steam offered refunds.

With all of the amazing first-party support from the console manufacturers PC hasn't been able to compete. I've bought only two PC games in Q4 of 2009 and around six console games. Those two PC games? I bought them both on Steam.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 11, 2010

@Cosmo I have no problems with him voicing his disagreement in the comments. I mainly just didn't like that he led into the article with it. As long as he doesn't let his disagreement negatively effect how the article is presented to the readers I don't care what he does as he has every right to his opinion. Still so does the article writer and their are things editors could do to undermine a post without even conciously trying that should be taken into account.

I think this sort of thing has to be taken seriously because people should feel like they don't have to second guess the editors because the editors aren't going to do things that aren't in the best intrest of the site and it's supporters, not because they have no right to second guess the editors at all.

Jeremy Watson

January 11, 2010

@Jeffrey

For the record, I agree he shouldn't have led your article like that. His disagreements should have been in the comments.

Jeremy Watson

January 11, 2010

Err... shouldn't have said "your" article. Whoops.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 12, 2010

@Jeremy I don't blame you. Most people wouldn't be this over the top unless they had a personal stake in it. I'm just an over dramatic rabble rouser hijacking another person's comments to make a point. Sorry for the excess drama Gabriel!

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 12, 2010

@Joshua They were already owned by dell when I bought mine as far as I know. I still wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them but as long as you have done some research and are still confident they do good work these days I wouldn't be suprised if they cleaned up their act.

Luke Flora

January 12, 2010

Wow, controversial comments in here, but at least we don't have idiots posting each other's avatars to make "teh funny" like on the 1up boards.

I was a PC gamer during my pre-adolescence, early teenage years, and first two years of college, but there is nothing about the platform that's attractive to me anymore. I take that back, nostalgia for the SSI AD&D; games and a handful of others interest me.

@Jason - The rule for spaces after a period is new to me, and that's going to be a hard habit to break. I'm young enough that I learned to type on computers instead of typewriters, but even ten years ago teachers were telling us to use two spaces. I guess they had learned to type on typewriters.

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 12, 2010

A couple of quick asides to all those who are telling me that I bought an inferior machine and expected top-tier performance, or that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to computers: 1. I state very clearly that I would expect "moderate" performance. In my opinion "moderate" should include enough effects to make the game playable at a decent framerate while spending three times the cost of a console 2. Read the date of writing, I didn't write this last week. If you bought a killer machine last week it has nothing to do with 6 months ago. 3. At the time I bought the computer mine had died. I work in Iraq and I have to have one so I can do the timesheets for my job and get work scheduling. This computer was the most expensive one the Embassy PX had, and according to most things I had read on the internet it was fairly priced. 4. It was Crysis *Warhead*, which as I mention in my article was expected to run well on a midrange machine. If a midrange machine costs $800 as you claim, that's still more than twice the price of a console. 5. My first computer was an 8088, so I've been at this for quite a while. I have built more than half of the computers I own. I could go through hardware specs all day, but my argument remains the same. It costs far more money, and is far more frustrating.

AJ Hurst

January 12, 2010

@Gabriel, After owning 3 separate desktops, none of which were built with gaming in mind when I first purchased them, I've learned to stop expecting quality gaming performance out of pre-built PCs unless they are explicitly designed for that stuff like the XPS line.

The key is the graphics card. I don't care how fancy they make the graphics card sound in the specs; integrated graphics is integrated graphics. You have to buy a new card.

This Dell Insipiron desktop I'm using now? Cost $600 for the whole package (including the monitor), and I spent an extra $150 on a graphics card that was up-to-snuff off Newegg. That's not "$2000 every two years;" that $750 to cover me for the next two-and-a-half.

$750 still sound too high? Don't worry - you probably already have a computer with some salvageable qualities. CPU and RAM are rarely the culprits. But let's say you do indeed lack sufficient RAM... $60 is the average price for a pair of modest sticks (2 GB apiece). On top of the $150-200 mid-range video card, that's just $210-260. For less money than the price of a PS3 or 360, you can turn your current machine into one capable running PC games well for the next 2 years.

I just don't understand why people scare themselves away from PC gaming because of the price. It's as if they've forever convinced themselves that the costs come to upwards of $1000 every twelve months. It's really not that bad. Really. We don't bite.

So Gabriel: your first mistake was assuming that the amount of money that you dump into your game machine would be directly proportional to the performance you got out of it. I hope you give another more well-informed and less costly shot at modern PC gaming before writing it off for good.

P.S.: @Gabriel, I have a friend that suspiciously matches the description of your co-worker, right down to the figurines and the console trash-talking. (His personal game of the year 2009 was Blood Bowl.) While I'll never convince him that 360, PS3, or Wii are worth owning, I hope I never end up sharing his attitudes. It is my firm belief that every self-respecting game enthusiast should own every relevant platform, at least by the end of the generation cycle. PS3, 360, Wii, PS2, the handhelds, and yes -- the PC.

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 12, 2010

@AJ My machine that I bought 2 years ago was a 2.4 quad-core with two 1 gig 8800 GT's running in SLI with a 10K rpm hard drive. I opted for 4GB of 1066 to match the FSB. I paid $1875. I appreciate that you are trying to help, but if I build computers (i.e. from parts I order) it would probably follow that I know what integrated graphics are. In addition, the only reason I didn't build that particular computer was that Cyberpower offered it *built* for a lower price than I could buy the parts for at Newegg. I assure you that I know what I'm talking about.

When it arrived, it would run my games well. (Though not spectacularly) But today that computer--which wasn't bleeding edge but was still pretty darn good at the time--would not be able to make Bioshock 2 look as good as it will look on my 360. That is what I'm talking about. You mentioned that it would only take the cost of a console (roughly $300) to get my machine up and running well for the next 2 years. I bought my 360 in December of 2005. In 4 years I have spent exactly zero dollars upgrading it, and I can play any game that is released and it looks comparable to a midrange computer now, not four years ago. This is what I'm saying.

Unless your buddy has been working for the State Dept. in Iraq I'm not sure it's the same guy. :)

Dustin Halfacre

January 12, 2010

I'm just going to come out and say it. I think the fact that this was selected as a front page story shows how little the Bitmob editors know about PC gaming.

From the very start of comparing a portable PC product to a gaming console is flawed. Then the individual complains about the install time of Crysis. He proceeds to play SF IV while it is being installed. I guess I didn't realize that this was an option when installing a game on a console. This multi-tasking will affect install times. I could go on, but I'm sure the other points are made in previous posts.

Richard Parkinson

January 12, 2010

Well I have to say I think the article could have been worded better. Obviously you went for a more light-hearted feel while still getting your point across but I think that meant you skimmed over some points that could have done with a bit more explanation. You've gone on to point out in the comments how much experience you have with PC gaming so it might have been better pointing that out in the article? In the article you say you don't want to have to shell out $2000 every 2 years just to play an RTS. If you have this much experience with PC games you must realise that statement simply isn't true?

The problem with this kind of piece is that while some of your points are valid, what you have to realise is that all those people out there that love PC gaming do so inspite of its problems. When you come out with a statement that PC gaming is "ultimately unsatisfying" it's going to get people a bit defensive, even though you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. Now that consoles are clearly the dominant force in gaming, people who still enjoy playing on their PC feel the need to defend it even more than ever.

Personally I love playing games on my PC and on consoles. Yet whenever I see an argument like this I always have to wade in on the side of the PC community, we always feel like the underdog. I know that sounds a little melodramatic but I think it's how a lot of PC gamers feel.

Sorry if that all sounds a bit blunt, I'm certainly not trying to claim you are wrong in disliking PC gaming (I certainly hate it sometimes!). I just wanted to say why I think you've got this kind reaction to your article that you can see in the comments.

Jeremy Watson

January 12, 2010

@Gabriel

Whoa whoa whoa... why do you think a 2.4Ghz Quad, 8800 SLI, 4GB RAM computer will be worse than an Xbox 360? Xbox specs are 3.2Ghz Tri, single 500 Mhz GPU, 512RAM which is shared between CPU and GPU.

Certainly the Xbox 360 gains quite a few frames by being a dedicated gaming machine. Keep in mind that to make a fair comparison (frame rate comparison anyway) you need to play with all the same settings. 1280x720 only (unless you want to compare the few console games that actually run at 1080p natively), 4xAA max, and so on. If you tried to run Bioshock on your Xbox 360 at 1080p say, it would seriously chug.

I can't disagree that PC gaming is more expensive, and you make some good points about the merits of console gaming, but a $1800 PC bought two years will definitely run any current gen console game better... at the same settings. In fact my $1000 PC runs all same games (again, at the same settings). And I bought it 3 years ago next month.

The latent PC gamer in you may cry out at leaving the textures to medium, and only playing on the middle resolutions, but that is what you are looking at when you play on consoles.

And if you will excuse me, I am going to now play Empire:TW at 1680x1050 with MST3K playing on my second monitor next to my browser I keep open to cruise the internets.

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 12, 2010

@Dustin--I was playing Street Fighter on my 360 while it installed on my computer. If this affects load times then I'm not quite sure I've heard about it. Jason Wilson (the managing editor that did this piece) started out the article explaining why he thought I was wrong. He published it because he thought it was well written (I'm guessing), not because he didn't know anything about PC gaming. And barring DLC and very few PS3 titles, you don't have to install games on consoles. You put it in, and it runs instantly--it's crazy!

@Richard--You can be as blunt as you'd like. The article was originally sent as an email to friends. I posted it on here thinking 5 people would read it. In hindsight I would have put finer points on what I wrote had I known it would be held up to so much scrutiny. John edited it to seem more professional (which I very much appreciate) and in so doing took out the casual nature of most of the statements I was making. Yes, I make broad generalizations in the article. But my basic point remains the same, it's far too expensive to constantly upgrade to be able to play at a high level *for me*. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and what they are willing to put up with, and I'm happy everyone has commented so much. But let me once again reiterate that this is an opinion piece and not to be mistaken with fact.

Richard Parkinson

January 12, 2010

I can't really disagree on your point about expense. I managed to build something that has suited me fine for 2 years and still plays things to a high level, but still I know it's coming around to upgrade time. It's not quite as prohibitive as some like to make out, but you'd be deluding yourself if you thought PC gaming was as cheap as buying a console.

It just comes down to what you are comfortable with, I suppose. I'm in my mid-20's and have few responsibilities (no huge mortgage, family) so I can get away with it. I try and justify the extra money because I use my PC for a lot more than just gaming. When a game breaks because of a random glitch I do wonder why I bother!

On your point about the frustration of instaling games, I think consoles are beginning to suffer from this slightly. These days patches for console games are just as common as ones on the PC and they aren't always small. Often if you put a game into your 360/PS3 that is a couple of years old you can expect the developer to have patched it a few times. You end up stuck waiting for a patch when all you wanted was a quick blast on an old favourite. Personally I'm happy to wait, but things aren't as simple for console gamers as they used to be.

Oh and can I just say how great it is that a topic like this that usually descends into insults and name calling on most gaming sites has stayed so civil! You've got some sort of witchcraft going on here, Bitmob.

Rob Savillo

January 12, 2010

I think this issue ultimately comes down to options. Do you want to have the option to customize the experience? Do you want to be able to customize your hardware?

Certainly, there's a convenience/freedom trade-off between PCs and consoles, but I don't think that one is inherently "better" (however we decide to measure that) than the other.

But I will say this: Jason is spot on about patience. I'll add that I love games with long install times -- that's the perfect opportunity to crack open the manual and learn the nuances of the game before playing.

Shuborno Biswas

January 12, 2010

@Gabriel
"I state very clearly that I would expect "moderate" performance. In my opinion "moderate" should include enough effects to make the game playable at a decent framerate while spending three times the cost of a console"

Cost is irrelevant when thinking about performance. I can go into my local Best Buy and find desktops that cost $2000 that are bad for games. Your video card was not strong enough to expect moderate performance, as it's the mobile downgrade of a card that's already a "budget" card.

"It was Crysis *Warhead*, which as I mention in my article was expected to run well on a midrange machine."

I think we simply disagree in that I'd call your machine lower than "midrange", and Crysis Warhead is still just an optimized Crysis, and still a franchise geared to the top-range machine. You are running it at a perfectly playable framerate, which makes the performance as-advertised.

I bet you can run TF2 pretty well.

I love consoles because of how easy it is to get into a game. The games I love on PC require a big time investment anyway, so the initial time to set up and tweak settings is pretty much irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. eg. I took a long time initially tweaking my settings for Fallout 3, but I'm never going to look at those menus again now that I'm into the game.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 12, 2010

This entire argument is just a quagmire. Too much nitpicking word choices and misunderstandings. I think it's really pointless at this juncture. He has his opinion, PC gamers have theirs. Live and let live. We'll all live longer that way.

Dustin Halfacre

January 12, 2010

I admit I missed or misunderstood the part about sliding over the notebook and playing SF IV on your console. It still doesn't resolve the issue that the term "gaming notebook" is really an oxymoron.

Everyone can look forward to when I compare gaming on my PSP to gaming on my PC gaming rig. The first topic I will cover is loading times;). Then I will complain about poor graphics and sound. Then I will conclude the article by comparing complaining about my psp display compared to my dual monitor setup for my PC. I'm only kidding, sort of. I'm looking forward to Bitmob promoting my "controversial" article.

I wrote the paragraph just poking fun at myself (for missing part of the article), the author, and Bitmob.

Kevin John Frank

January 13, 2010

Irregardless of Jeffrey's perceived notion that the commenting here needed refereeing (thanks just the same), this is the tamest PC vs. Console discussion I have read on the Interwebs.

Sure there were some sparks, but as flame wars go, I felt I could sit real close to this fire and roast some marshmallows while listening to some engaging discourse rather than having my flesh turned to cinder by the firestorm of one thousand dying suns--something that would invariably happen on the majority of gaming forums whenever a similar topic is posted. Kudos bitmob!

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 13, 2010

Just because the discussion is 'tame' doesn't mean it isn't a quagmire by bitmob standards. Could you imagine being Gabriel looking at this post whenever he mouses over? Almost every single post in the comments is nitpicking his word choices, every single attempt he makes to explain himself is ignored and downvoted or nitpicked all over again, and his post is put on the top section as 'maybe we shouldn't have run this story.' This has become a joke at this point. PC gamers are running in here and taking everything super seriously while Gabe is the almost the only console gamer defending what he said. This isn't a discussion it's a damn dogpile. It's tedius to read, frustrating to people who agree with the original sentiment of his article, and the way Bitmob handled the article at every point suggests they wanted this cluster screw. Bitmob shouldn't want to be in a position where they look like they offer up harmless opinion pieces to fanboy slaughter.

This isn't a civil discussion because both sides aren't even near balanced. You can nitpick Gabe all you want over this post he wrote as a damn e-mail to friends and just threw up here on a lark but the fact of the matter is that their are plenty of people frustrated and put off by PC games.

Pointing out every single little thing that you see wrong with the article isn't going to change that. The point of his article doesn't seem to have originally been the comprehensive and perfect deconstruction of PC games. He was just stating his personal experiences and opinion and this entire section of comments taking that as such an indefensible affront just epitomizes why just because you are being polite it still is disruptive to be a polite swarm of nerd rage.

I don't know exactly how Gabriel feels about the article's reception, He's probably not reading into it as much as I have, but I would personally have asked for it to be taken down at around this point. It's not worth the grief.

Shuborno Biswas

January 13, 2010

@Jeffrey S

Gabriel bought a computer that was not designed to do what he bought it for, and he blames the software for not meeting his (unreasonable) expectations.

Is that a concise enough summary of PC gamers' complaints without nitpicking word choice?

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 13, 2010

Sure it is Shub. It's also irrelevant at this point since he has explained himself about that, the article is out of date with his current PC setup, and he outright stated that even after changing his computer setup and getting something more well suited he still stands by his decision to de emphaisize PC games in his life. Did you read those posts where he explained himself? Apparently none of the other members of the PC defense force did if they are still harping on the content of the original article with such zeal.

Shuborno Biswas

January 13, 2010

@Jeffrey S

Fair enough. I read his posts, but I missed the one where he mentioned it was a casual email he figured 5 people would read, and now I feel foolish for critiquing ;)

Consoles are certainly easier to game with than a PC. I don't think that can be disputed. That's why I have one and buy most big titles on it.

It's just that PC doesn't have to be a headache - it just requires that initial research/investment to make sure you get a machine that won't give you those headaches!

Gabriel Shelnutt

January 13, 2010

While I thank Jeffery for his passionate defense, I really don't mind the criticism. When you title an article "The One where I earn the enmity of every PC gamer" you have to expect they are going to come out blasting. That said, I feel that I have explained and justified enough. Before I was attempting to placate people who had questions about what I wrote, but the simple fact is that I just don't care. I wrote it, you can take it however you like. (Since that's what you're going to do anyway regardless of what I say) I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind when I wrote it, why would I start now?

Richard Parkinson

January 14, 2010

You seem to be taking this a bit seriously Jeffrey, I can't see much grief going on. I know this might stir it up again, but I'm not sure what you wanted to happen here? What you see as nitpicking I see as simply a thorough discussion. As in, people posted an answer to the article and then Gabriel explained his side of it further. Or were we all meant to suddenly side with him after he explained his point more? You seem to be coming at this from a very odd angle.

It isn't our fault that a group of people posted comments roughly along the same lines, it's just the way it went. Just because I disagree with Gabriel doesn't mean I'm suddenly out to get him or I hate him. You seem to be reading malice and ill intent in other peoples comments where there simply is none. Labelling people as fanboys for giving their view is a little harsh.

People are allowed to having differing opinions without the world exploding.

Jeffrey Sandlin

January 14, 2010

@Richard

As Shub admitted, their are posts that are critisizing gabe's motivations for the post that don't take into account his explainations that he gives after the fact and I felt his side was largely being ignored. I also personally dislike the idea that someone disliking PC gaming requires justification at all. I'm not really the sort to leave these things unsaid.

I'll admit that I got caught up in the back and forth a little with the posting but rest assured that from my perspective their was plenty to be agitated about.

I don't wish to insult anyone directly with what I say I just dislike the fact that the hoard had to decend on this post and turn it into a controversy at all.

It pretty much spoke for itself and all the things PC gamers disagreed with were fairly easy for Gabe to clear up in order to defend his own position. He has an opinion, and by the first response it should be obvious that his opinion isn't going to change.

Things were pretty much resolved. Then the hoard decended and every pro console post got downvoted, Jason Wilson's (largely unconvincing to me) argument about patience solving all of our grievances got upvoted a staggering 5 times, and then their was a swarm of posts about how Gabe shouldn't have expected a good gaming performance out of a laptop and how crisis is a special case super hard to run game. after that their were good posts here and there but the comments got so cluttered and my own attention got so inflamed by my discomfort with Jason's lead in to the article being largely another of the many pro PC justifications that were already littering the comments that I just got fed up and tried to point out how ridiculous things were getting.

Then I had to defend my being fed up and then defend my defense to being fed up and so on and so on till I got to this post, because all that the comments here are is just challenging people to explain themselves without enough listening to those people's opinion and accepting that it's different from yours.

My issue was twofold. I don't like how bitmob staff handled this post and I don't like how bitmob readers handled this post. No matter what anyone says to me about how comfortable they are with it and how bad it gets on other sites this won't change. This, for me, is as frustrating and tiresome as I've ever seen Bitmob get. I wanted to say so to convey that I would like to not see things go downhill from here.

I'm hardly the sort to have any right to talk back to other people for being reactionary but I just don't like standing by and doing nothing when something pisses me off. I'm sorry if it cluttered up the already cluttered mess of this section but I've said my piece and I'm hopefully just going to be done with it here.

PC gamers may like how this post was handled but what about the people who agree with Gabe? What were they feeling as this storm decended? I'd personally like to hear more of that.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.