With PC gaming often forgotten about in favour of console gaming, Crowbar Error 42 takes a look at some of the reasons why PC gaming is superior to console gaming.

Being this site focuses on PC gaming I knew that this is a list that I would be doing one day. So I decided to get it over and done with, and make it our first official list article. So welcome to our 10 Reasons Why Gaming is Better on PCs.

Before I get into this list I want to say that this is my personal opinion from playing both PC and console games for over 15 years, and I will fully admit that some of the things I talk about in this list do appear in one or two console games, but I would argue that in the realm of PC gaming these things are done better and are more of a standard on the platform.
| More
Latest comment:
Most recently commented on by on Sep 5, 2009
Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 4
    Play ISDF Sep 3, 09
    Lets see here...

    Controls - Yes the mouse is more accurate, yes the keyboard is awesome for RTS. Yet you can get those for consoles those days. Also, Halo Wars did pretty exceptionally well for a console RTS.

    Graphics - Sure, that's true. As long as you keep tossing out more and more money every year or two to have the best of the best. Personally I prefer tossing out $400ish for a new console every 5-10 years and still having sweet graphics and money in my wallet.

    Mods - Can't refute. Completely true.

    Game Price - Bullshit. Maybe other places around the world are different but I know in Australia at least the prices are pretty much exactly the freakin same till they are old.

    Backward Compat - The author of the article fails to mention that even old PC games have problems. He might have played a DOS game recently, but I couldn't even install about eight old games and have them run properly on both XP and Vista. And yes, I know all about compatibility mode and everything else. For consoles and computers, backward compat has holes, full stop.

    Running own server - To an extent, but have a look at Blizzard for instance. Lan is going down the tubes and now B.Net is practically a requirement. It's quite likely that big games will follow suit for various reasons. Also, generally speaking, a lot of games, even if you aren't using a specific server at least require a form of matchmaking through an online service then just uses peer-to-peer hosting/playing to have games.

    Emulation - True. However, as said, legally grey, but many old games are there for download for consoles anyway. Virtual console anyone?

    Upgrades - If you love to toss out cash, yay for you! Most frame rate issues and other assorted issues for consoles are due to the games themselves from what I've seen. Most games work perfectly fine. Granted consoles lag behind after time graphics wise but again, it comes down to price doesn't it? Who can upgrade all the freaking time to run games at their best? I know that I've got a life that forces me to buy other things.

    Services - Xbox Live and what's going on with it recently kills this pretty well in my opinion. Besides, while I can understand doing different things during wait-type periods in games, shouldn't people be I don't know... playing the freaking game! You don't need to go twitter that you got your ass kicked on a game. You should be paying attention to when you actually respawn, that way you don't piss off other people when you sit there doing nothing cause your freaking slow and not paying attention.

    Customizing System - Does this guy have like $100,000 to spend just on computers for the rest of his life or something? Consoles don't make a lot of noise. If you want to see all your games then why not have a shelf of game cases/all your games in a disk folder. Unless your storing a hell of a lot of music and movies and all on your consoles, you shouldn't really run out of room. And if you swap between games that much, then you must either really suck at games, must be really bored, or all those games suck.

    I know that this is a long comment, but I feel better refuting and proving generally how stupid this article is. PC gaming and console gaming both have their pros and cons. Saying one is better than the other is shortsighted, arrogant, and stupid. Sorry for the rant though.
    • 4
      Celes Leonhart Sep 3, 09
      My retort:

      Controls - if I remember rightly, the only game that can use a keyboard and mouse set up on Playstation 3 is Unreal Tournament III. I don't believe there's any on Xbox but that might not be true. Otherwise you're relying on overly expensive joystick-and-weird-mouse-pad deals that lack the extensive capabilities of a proper mouse and keyboard. This can include things like Mouse DPI, LCD screens, additional buttons, short cut keys and customisable macro keys.

      Graphics - I bought my graphics card two years ago and it has been and always will be better than any current generation console's graphics. The PC I built at the time would have cost about the same as a brand new Playstation 3, or maybe a little bit more. This is considering I bought relatively good components at the time. Pretty much all mid-range graphics cards nowadays completely destroy consoles, for about the same price I bought mine a few years ago. The argument that you need to buy a new graphics card every year-to-two is only valid if you buy a weak one.

      Game Price - Don't know where the article is from, but PC games are about 3/4 the price of PS3/360 games in the UK brand new, and drop very quickly.

      Backwards Compatability - Yes, it has holes. However, unless you're using Vista then I don't see how you're coming up against many problems, and in the cases of problems there's pretty much always a fix. You compare this to the console counterparts: 360 has a very restricted selection of Xbox Originals, no currently sold Playstation 3 has Playstation 2 compat. The only console with respectable backwards compatibility is Wii.

      Emulation - I don't see how Virtual Console is much of an argument considering you can have any game through emulators, whereas the VC is limited. A more on-point idea would be just using homebrew on a Wii. Either way, the topic, like said, is legally gray.

      Running your own server - I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to Battle.net, because Battle.net allows you to host your own server. If it was all official server hosting you wouldn't have enough to fit the players. I think you're mixing up a Lan server to just generally hosting one. Most games do not require a matchmaking system either; this is primarily a console matter. Most games still use the long-standing server list.

      Upgrading - Regularly upgrading is not necessary. It's a luxury.

      Services - Xbox Live kills the PC's services...when there's WINDOWS LIVE? It's the same thing but without the fee and without the scope of the marketplace. Generally speaking it doesn't need a marketplace though, seeing as pretty much all PC DLC is free anyway. This is not even considering that Steam completely trumps the both of them. Xfire is also worth noting. You're complaining about people going on Twitter and shit; that's a choice of the player, completely irrelevant.

      I want it to be noted that I'm not gunna be claiming either side is better because, as you said, both have pros and cons. I just found your counters wrong.
    • 0
      Tiger of Wu Sep 3, 09
      "So comeback next week for our 10 Reasons Why Gaming is Better on Consoles."

      Someone wasn't reading very closely I see
  • 0
    cantstrafeferight Sep 3, 09
    I'm not going to argue with everything you bring up because everyone has a different opinion.

    but I do bring up that I don't talk about the bad and that next week I plan on doing a Why Consoles are Better for Gaming article So don't complain that I don't talk about the bad in this article because I'm saving it for next week.
  • 0
    Slumpy monkey Sep 3, 09
    PC gaming ftw. I enjoy it far better than console gaming tbh.
  • 0
    HisServant77 Sep 3, 09
    I wouldn't like it merely for the fact that I don't like to have to get the gaming machine and upgrade it for nearly every other game, just to experience the game the best way (The "graphics" point made by play above)
    • 3
      VeGiTAX2 Sep 3, 09
      Indeed you totally have to upgrade it for every game and it costs about $400-500 just to do it... Back in 2003.

      Go shop newegg, do yourself a favor and look around pricegrabber and google shopping. Consumers have been able to get cards in the past 2-3 years that'll last them well into the coming years with perfectly fine performance and great visuals. My 3850 was practically nothing (Sub 100) and it runs modern games without a hitch.

      The pc gaming upgrade myth has been dead for a while, people who do it right the first time rarely have upgrading woes. People who buy poor components get what they get, absolutely wretched performance.
      • 0
        HisServant77 Sep 3, 09
        Well it still has that feel to it, that you have to change things more often then otherwise, in order to receive the best (then some seem to require the upgrades).

        Still, the PC in my eyes is mostly for working and such, and not really a gaming machine (at least that's not why I buy them).
  • 0
    RabidChinaGirl Sep 3, 09
    Eh, maybe one's not better than the other, just more convenient for different people.
  • 0
    Tiger of Wu Sep 3, 09
    Prices and modding I'll give you, but everything else is either grey or just plain useless to me personally. Good to see they'll have a counter-argument for it though, at least there is some small hope for journalists.

    I do refrain from PC gaming though, if only because of the time I dipped my foot in the pool of World of Warcraft I saw how dangerous it could be to my feeble little mind.
  • 3
    Red 9 Sep 3, 09
    I don't even need to read it to know why PC gaming can be considered better than console gaming. You just get more versatility out of your games, because of the vast keyboard control you have (at least in comparison to a console controller). It's why simulators commonly work better on PCs.

    But I wuv my console gaming anyway. So no hard feelings.
  • 0
    Roke Sep 4, 09
    Console gaming is far more enjoyable for me. I love the ability to lie comfortably on my bed with my dog instead of sitting up in a chair with my face barely a metre from the screen. While it may not offer as much diversity, I also find the 360 controller to be extremely comfortable and ergonomic as opposed to stretching my hand all over a huge rectangle of little buttons.
  • 0
    SGD Sep 4, 09
    I have definite preferences for computers over consoles for certain game types- specifically, FPS, RTS, and RPG games. I like playing these types of games on a computer, because of the controls and interface.

    For the console, I like platformers, fighting games, racing games. There are just some things (like that perfect powerslide, or mashing your opponent's face in) that are done better with a gamepad.

    I like consoles because of their reliability, their relatively low price, their standard graphics that mean I don't have to either upgrade or go without, and the fact that I can get my family/friends playing alongside me.

    But, I like games on computers because their graphics can be pushed higher and higher. Also, a lot of my favourite games- like S.T.A.L.K.E.R for example- are PC-exclusive. I love modding features in games, particularly large ones like Bethesda's Oblivion, or Fallout 3.

    Online play is pretty much the same between both systems for me. I can access a large variety of games online and play against people all over the world. I'm a social gamer, however, so playing online games that I can converse with another player are the best for me. And, without a USB keyboard or a headset for my console, I can't do that in most cases. So PC wins. Just.
  • 0
    Onisamax Sep 4, 09
    I'm a PC gamer since 1999 n still loving it. Yes, it's a pretty financially demanding hobby but that's what we call trade off. Console gaming less financially demanding but the trade off : you still have to pay for DLCs. 2 years ago I built a game PC using medium priced major components. I had to buy a new 3d card a year later because the old one was broken, not because I had to. Ever since then, I have been waiting for a game to break my PC's performance. So far only PC exclusives were the only games that managed to put my PC to it's knees - e.g. ARMA 2, Panzer : Cold War and Theatre of War 2 at 20 fps average.
  • 0
    Onisamax Sep 4, 09
    Referring to my previous comment I noticed something that not many people discussed. I bought a number of PC versions of major multi-platform games since 2008 and noticed that they don't push my PC that much. In fact I played them at 1680X1050 resolution with max setting. No sweat when playing DMC4, Far Cry 2, Overlord2, World at War, Fallout 3 and others. It seems that multi-platforming had become PC's friend. No matter how pretty a game looks, it still had to cater the lowest performing machine - not sure which one (a sensitive Freudian topic, so let it go). It's not all about hardware - software is the key. Someone said Battlefield Bad Company (Frostbite) engine was too powerful for the PC, Metal Solid Gear 4 Resident Evil 5 won't appear on the PC and all that. Well in 2009 , I heard....well you get the idea.
    Still, I hate when the mouse is not implemented well in multiplatform games and PC versions of games put on hold or canceled (e.g. Alan Wake)- that is plain disrespectful. I found my respect for console game developers getting higher since they starting to make more or better PC versions. At times, I couldn't say the same for PC games developers who make great console games and then making terrible PC ports.

    Anyways, PC gaming is still alive and kicking.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.