PC Vs. Consoles - Who Really Wins?

I've been a gamer for most of my life. I owned an original grey-box NES back in the late 80's. I have witnessed most of the console wars as both an observer and participant. But there's always one school of thought floating around out there: a computer always beats the consoles. I want to take these few moments to examine this claim and state my reasons why I reject this view.

First, let's consider the nature of the two candidates. A personal computer (PC) is a complex tool capable of performing many different tasks. You can use a PC to connect to the Internet (and read articles on Associated Content), balance your checkbook, calculate your taxes, wax artistic with programs such as Photoshop, or even play video games. Video game consoles (or "systems," as they are often called) are generally designed to do only one thing: play video games. The newer consoles are breaking out of this role, but they are still a bit removed from being computers in themselves. Does that mean the PC is superior just by the weight of its abilities? Not necessarily.

Console consumers buy consoles because they only want to play games (whether it's in the room alone, or online). Consumers don't buy PC's just to play games (if you do, you have just bought a console - think about it). The market is already established at a divide. The two should not be compared. Nevertheless, computers can play games. Thus, people fight over which is better.

But consider this, too. We purchase cars for one reason: to drive. You can sleep in most of them, or host a barbecue off the tailgate. That doesn't mean the car is better than a bed (well, some beds), or better than a grill. It's just added functionality.

I'll make it very clear. I love computers. I use them at work everyday, and I play my share of video games for them. I have nothing against computers, but I do not believe they are "better" than video game consoles in and of themselves.

The first argument I submit is the economic argument. PC's cost a lot more than consoles, nearly 400 dollars or more. If you live on a budget (and I do), it's much more reasonable to buy a game system that fits in your budget than to break the bank for a computer just to play video games. To be fair, I do own a computer, and I do own games for it. I love them, but I'd never choose them over any of the current consoles on the market. Never. But wait! I own a computer. That solves the economic argument, doesn't it? Think again.

That leads me into the second argument: compatibility. Can I go to any store and buy a computer game? Just about. But will that game work on my computer? That's another story, and I feel it's the greatest flaw in this paradigm. PC's have more requirements on their games than any console ever invented. Simply put, if I want to buy a computer game, I not only have to have the computer, I have to meet the minimum system requirements (the recommended requirements if I want to fully experience the game). What if I really want a game, but I don't have enough RAM? Well, I have to either buy a new computer that has the needed RAM, or buy more RAM for the computer I have. Upgrading isn't always a big deal to do, but it does create a problem. New computer technology comes out all the time. By the time I upgrade my computer, something new is out. And game developers love to take advantage of new technology, thus releasing games specifically designed to work and only with that technology.

It's a frustrating hassle, and one that I cannot stand. But if you own a console, you don't really have that problem. If I buy a game for XBOX 360, I can bring it home and play it that night. No questions asked. Now in the old days, a few consoles did need add-ons to help play games. The Nintendo 64 had a memory expansion upgrade. Without it, you could not play certain games (Donkey Kong 64, Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, etc.). The Sega Genesis had the 32X and SegaCD, which did much the same thing. So consoles do occasionally need upgrades, but they are few and far between compared to PC's, which need upgrades frequently to play games.

The last argument I bring up is exclusivity. I admit, I'm a bit disappointed with today's console games. There aren't very many truly exclusive titles to go around. And I mean truly exclusive. A game that is available across platforms is not an exclusive, and that's what a lot of the big ones are today. I understand why this happens. Game developers want to make as much money as they can out of their product. Making their product available for multiple consoles means it has a better chance of making a big profit. But exclusive games are what make a system unique. They are what make XBOX 360 different from PS3 and Wii. In the old days, game were made for Nintendo or Sega, then Nintendo or Sony, with only a few available for both. Now, it's not so diverse.

Now before I go further, I have to address XBOX 360. This console boasts a wide number of exclusive titles, but I beg to differ. I stated before there's a lack of truly exclusive titles. 360 does indeed have a wide library of exclusive titles. The problem is this: who are they exclusive from? That's what they people don't usually talk about. The bigger 360 titles are exclusive, but exclusive to the console market. That means PS3 and Wii don't have them. But what about the PC? Well, it's not a console, so it doesn't count. I disagree. The truth is folks that most of the major releases for 360 are indeed available for PC as well. TimeShift, BioShock, Crysis, and even Halo 3 are available for computer. They're great games, but I'm sorry, folks. Those are not truly exclusive titles.

But in spite of all this, the overwhelming majority of games for 360, PS3, and Wii are not available for PC. That is not a minority of games out there. How many PC titles are PC-exclusive? Not very many, huh? Certainly not very many worth bragging about, when compared to the mass of games for consoles only. It is clear to me that developers do not consider PC's competitive enough to make very many games just for it. That's why I stick with consoles.

Now some PC-only gamers like to make arguments against consoles. It's certainly their right. But I'd like to counter some of them.

I have people say, "but a console is just a console. You get what you get, and that's it. A computer can be expanded, upgraded, and so on." They're right. But I covered a lot of this already. Just having the ability to upgrade is neither an advantage or disadvantage. But I'll give them that for a moment. Let's say the upgrade abilities do give computers the edge. That doesn't end the argument. When you can't upgrade the hardware, what has to change? The software, of course. In the past, when consoles lacked, and developers wanted the game there, they had to work on the game itself. A good example was NFL Blitz for N64. The N64's hardware lacked the ability to round off polygons in a 3d environment. So human characters had a very "boxed" look about them. But Blitz was different. The makers of Blitz wanted the game to remain relatively unchanged between the arcade release and the N64 version. So they had to tweak the game cartridge itself to make it work. And it did.

The software on a console has to make up for the hardware's shortcomings. That puts the burden on the developer, not the consumer's pocketbook.

Sometime, they use this argument: "But I can never get used to that controller. I am used to a keyboard. It's much simpler." Forgive me, but this makes little sense to me. Most games don't require more than 8 buttons. You would rather use a keyboard, which has over a hundred buttons, with spare literally all over the place (easy to hit the wrong ones at times), than a controller with 12 or fewer buttons and only a few spares left? Really, which is the more efficient use of technology?

Lastly: "But console gamers are always fighting themselves. PC gamers just sit back and laugh." You can laugh if you want. That makes no difference to me or any other console gamer. I do think it unfortunate that consoles often breed loyalty to the brand alone. It's just a matter of personal tastes, and we ought to leave it at that. But you can't blame the games or the system for that. That's a human problem, and it will never be solved as long as humans are the main consumers. Do a few drunk drivers keep you off the road? Also, take a look at that statement carefully. Who do you think you are, anyway? No one is better than anyone because of the games or game system he plays. PC gamers are no exception. You're not better than the rest of us.

In the end, it's just a matter of tastes. Some like PC's and don't want anything else. Okay. Leave it at that. Don't belittle me because I own a Nintendo or anything else. And don't try to convince people not to buy consoles. This article is purely opinion, I'll readily admit. I don't mean to disrespect good, honest people, but most of the PC-only gamers I know don't give console gamers any leeway. It needs to stop. We all need to think things out rationally and logically. This is my 2-cent's-worth. Take it or leave it.

Are PC's better than consoles? My answer is no. No. No. No. A thousand times, no.