Does it suck badly compared to the PC version?

Yes, all FPSes suck vs the PC.

I disagree.

unless the PC version is a porrly done port of the console version the PC version is going to be better than the console version when it's a FPS

I agree, Jim, but the console versions doesn't always outright suck compared to the PC ones...

Idiot. Blanket statements FTL.



I've enjoyed L4D on 360. It's very fun. The controls are very tight and responsive. No issues. If you have opportunity, go for it.

I avoid Valve games on the consoles because, as much as I like the company, their early versions of multiplayer games are riddled with bugs. So PC tends to be the way to go due to patches and updates.

You can still "skywalk" in the 360/PS3 versions of TF2 and build sentries underground. But if you don't play with exploiters, it's fine.

Actually I just read today that Valve keeps updating the console L4D simultaneously with the PC version. Console games get patches/updates these days too.

There are plenty of awesome shooters on consoles. CoD4, Bioshock, etc.

All of which are better on the PC.

Which Lord Matty knows, since he plays all games, objectively, on all platforms before making ludicrous blanket statements.

Maybe slightly? Somewhat better graphics depending on your rig and better aiming, that's pretty much all PC offers. But the console versions certainly don't suck like you said.

Actually, I have played all said games on the 360 and the PC, so I can make said statement.

Controls are the primary reason to not play on a console like the 360. Graphics are the second. Mods are the third. Much larger online multiplayer network is the fourth (seriously, find a decent Team Fortress 2 host on the 360) with more players, typically less bugs is the fifth, costs less money (for the game) is the sixth...

I could probably think of more if I gave it some time.

if i want to play cod4 with some friends here at the house i could:

a) have 4 gaming rigs set up at 4x$1000 or so and find a place in the house to put them all

b) play on the $300 xbox

hmm give me a minute to think

Consoles are good since you don't have to worry about system requirements. But keyboard and mouse control scheme is just plain win.

There's also a significant price difference between a single xbox360 and a computer that will give better graphics rendering than the 360 itself with good framerate. (Averaging around 300$ vs 1000$ (this includes brand new computer and all components (keyboard, mouse, decent screen)) That and you don't have to update the xbox360 every year to keep up with the technology to run the games. And the "less bugs" claim for PC vs Xbox360 is bogus. There are bugs and freezes on both platforms. Sometimes identical, sometimes differing.

Additionally, as someone who works on a computer 8 hours a day, I much prefer lounging in my sofa, playing on my 47" hdtv, chilling than sitting up at a computer with my nose pressed up a small 21.5" screen.

These are just my personal opinions, really.

You could always hook your computer up to your TV and get a wireless mouse and keyboard.

No, instead, the games run slower and slower on the 360, and at lower resolutions. See also: Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, compared to earlier games.

I won't deny the price difference, but if you already have a system capable of running it, then the point is moot.

Actually, it's not bogus at all. The console receives far less patches for bugs than a PC does, because it costs the developers far more money to release a patch on the console. To reuse my TF2 example, there hasn't been a proper patch for it in over a year, leaving many ridiculous bugs that don't even exist in the PC version anymore. In addition, the 360 will require a paid DLC to get content that the PC version will receive for free.

And that's personal opinion. I feel far more engrossed in my games when I play them on the PC than I ever do on the console.



Yes, just like we used to do back in 1997 with Goldeneye. We've really moved up! You don't get online multiplayer with splitscreen in Call of Duty 4. Halo 3 managed it, but it's laggy as hell.

Goldeneye 64 and Perfect Dark?

Unless the console shooter has split-screen, it's always going to be inferior to a PC FPS. But once that feature is added, I'll kiss my PC goodbye, as I'm not coming back for a lonnngg while.

I agree with both CM and the others. I may feel more involved in my games if I'm playing them on a PC, but a stereo system on my TV makes up for that.

I have a 32inch SDTV, and a 19inch LCD monitor. Games look great on my monitor, but either way, both are far too small to enjoy >.<

About Valve: They've (or rather, Gabe_Newell) has openly expressed his dislike of the consoles, but most famously his apparent hatred of the PS3. This may be a factor behind the lack of patches and attention on the console versions of their games.

They're better on the PC too

It appears that people with real friends prefer console games, whereas people with internet for friends prefer PC.

Admitedly I like both and agree that PC is far superior for online multiplayer.

I love to play co-operative split screen with friends and family, but alas not enough games make good use of such features.

I wouldnt say all FPS's suck on console (for me PS3), I enjoyed playing the games for which there was no PC version, example: Resistance: Fall of Man.

But if the game is available on both platforms, ofc I would choose to play it on the PC. Personally most of it boils down to the control scheme- keyboard and mouse are 10x more accurate and intuitive than a controller. There are a few console games which do support keyboard/mouse like UT3, but I still cant find convicing reasons to play them over the PC version.

Actually they are, when you use a 360 controller and map both joy sticks to work like a more modern FPS

But you know, I like playing FPS on both PC and consol, I like using the sticks. It's a disadvantage vs mouse keyboard, but everyone has the same disadvantage.

I haven't bought L4D because half my friends have it on PC and half have it on X-Box 360, dilemma times

There are modifications that will actually give you keyboard/mouse control like a proper FPS.

Halo 3 uses a modified Halo 2 engine and not one made from the ground up for 360. And the only reason CoD4 runs at sub-720p is to maintain a constant 60 FPS at all times which is (IMO) not altogether necessary but a design choice on the developer's part.



PC games require more patches because they are often buggy as hell due to the infinite number of possible software and hardware combinations. Ditto Fallout 3: it has received the same support from developers on both 360 and PC, yet the 360 version is less prone to crashing and has fewer bugs (see VATS glitch in the PC version that existed up to v1.5) than the 360 version. And in general, major releases like Call of Duty 4 and Grand Theft Auto IV have received more official support on consoles than for PC so what you're saying is not true.



Seriously dude, what are you talking about? Is this because you're using a PC screen instead of a TV or what? You can connect a 360 to a PC monitor if being close to a screen is somehow engrossing to you.



This has never been confirmed. In fact, the free release of the L4D survival pack for 360 speaks against the idea that free content for 360 is out of the question because of Microsoft's reluctance. Unless Valve wants to charge for it.

And also, it's well established that TF2 is inferior on consoles. Like 50 people play TF2 on 360 compared to 100,000+ on CoD4 and Halo 3. You can't make generalizations based solely on one game.

Agreed.

Everything I read seems to say the opposite for Halo 3 (it's a new engine).


See also: the Fallout 3 DLC having to be revoked from X-Box Live not once, not twice, but three times.

Even including bugs from hardware configurations, they're still less buggy than the console iterations. Also, both COD4 and GTA4 required less support simply because they were less buggy on the PC.

Everything I've said has been true, and it all ties in to the cost of maintaining patches for the consoles. (Especially the massive fees Microsoft charges to do so)

I'd say it's a bit more than just being close to the screen. It's the controls which don't fight me, it's the graphics which look more realistic (seriously, have you played a 360 game up close on PC? COD4 looks like vomit), and my surround system is far better laid out. Again, it's personal opinion, so drop the attempt at proving anyone wrong here.


It has been confirmed, for TF2.

Also, the Survival Pack for L4D was more of a patch than a full DLC. There's no new actual "content", just some code changes to implement the new system in the existing resources.




More like:

FPSes suck compared to PCs, thus I play something other than FPSes on consoles. I have a 360 and a Wii, and they both get thorough use, but I never play an FPS on them. Seriously, when I think of console multiplayer, I think of things like Rock Band, Worms, Wii Sports, etc. Not Call of Duty. Not L4D.

Hey, I prefer FPS games on PC, but that isn't what his post said.

Mouse + WASD >> two sticks on a controller
in every aspect.

Mousewheel + Mousebuttons + E, R, F, Q, spacebar, ctrl, shift >> buttons on a controller
more options, easier access, easier to execute multiple actions at once

Split-screen FPS playing blows due to screen watching. And basically what CM said.

There are only 3 advantages the console has over PC (this applies generally to all game genres).

- Cost
- Console-exclusive games
- Fighters (SF4, etc)

All valid points but it doesn't mean console FPS games suck.

I never said they suck period, I said they suck compared to PCs.

I acknowledge your opinion Cool Matty, however...

I find your comments on COD4 invalid. It's always looked like vomit (at least, for a next gen game.)

Jesus Christ you're a ****ing moron. You pout and whine over "lol that's just your opinion", then go and make asinine statements yourself.

You know, insulting the guy who runs the site is a good way to get banned

I didn't pout and whine, I stated a fact. Sitting farther away and looking at a larger screen does not improve the experience for me, namely the reason Jep offered for playing on the console. There isn't any factual evidence to support either of our sides, it's just opinion.

Everything else though, is far less "opinion". Less bugs is a fact. Better graphics is a fact. Better controls is a fact.



Get uppity much? This was a calm and clear debate until you blew a gasket.

Console FPSes are great for dicking around with friends with.

They are not so great if you want to play seriously.

Somehow, hardcore pistols headshots only in CoD4 would be less fun if you're on a PC, if only for the fact you can't see two people sitting next to each other firing wildly at one another one meter away to no effect.

Although I guess in that example the ****ty controls make it fun.

Not being able to play L4D is the worst thing about losing my computer. Maybe this one can play it after I reformat...