As tends to happen with nerds, we get rather fanatical about our own opinions to the point where we get a bit hysterical. I'm not above this myself and regularly have to do a hubris-check to get back to reality. Have not made a post here in a long time due to forgetting I was meant to update this thing, and a lack of making time to post, but a recent Facebook thread devolved into a 50-comment Console vs PC flame war and before I knew it I'd started writing a long, meta-as-fuck reply that warranted a proper post. I realised it was one of my comments that actually triggered whole thing, so, time for that hubris-check...
The gist of the comments on the Facebook threadnaught were as follows:
- LANs are dead and a thing of the past
- Console players are not "gamers"
- PCs are superior to consoles
- PC gamers are elitist cunts
It's extremely easy to fall back on the whole "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" as an argumental defence, for both sides. Ultimately that is true, as the whole point of debate is discussion of opinions. Where we fall flat, is when we can no long back up our opinions with cold, hard facts, and we default to the image above.
Again: both sides of the argument (any argument) will probably get to this point because they don't want to change their opinion on the matter. Fuck, let's get philosophical and self-defeatist for a moment: even this post, despite my best efforts to ground it in logic and reason, is ultimately my opinion.
LANs are dead
It's been argued that with Skype/Vent/Teamspeak/Mumble, the internet, and disappearing menu options, LAN gaming is a thing of the past. An old dinosaur of social gaming struck down by an internet meteor that blocked out the sky with trolls, squeakers and bads.
LAN gaming should not die.
I still prefer to go to a LAN than game via the internet. To hell with the hassle of shifting a rig or TV. To hell with back pain from sitting on shitty chairs and cramped, sweaty, smelly rooms. I want it. As one of the comments said: You can't high-five over the internet.
I organised LANs at high school and uni, for consoles and PCs, with and without internet access because I enjoy gaming with others more than playing single player, or not being in the same room as the people I'm playing with. The only reason everyone I regularly game with isn't sick of me dragging my rig around to their houses is because I'm in a different country.
The two games that have absorbed more of my time in the last 3-4 years than any other are Dota and Minecraft. Collective interest in both of those started out from LANs. To run through games I've gotten extremely invested in as a direct result of LAN parties and gaming nights at other's houses (note the MMOs):
- MOBAs (DotA into HoN into Dota2)
- Minecraft
- Terraria (albeit via VPN)
- WoW
- EVE Online
- Civ4
- Halo
- Supreme Commander
- could even make an argument for Call of Duty
"Console kiddies aren't gamers" / PC Gaming Master Race
I can't dispute PC gamers are the master race, but the console kiddies are gamers too. You have to accept that. The fact that consoles out-sell PCs attests to that. The fact that CoD out-sells BF attests that something in CoD triggers more fun in a pre-teen's brain than BF. Fighting games, JRPGs, sports, 3-D platformers (like the LEGO games): all better on console.
If you get excited about games and gaming, you are a gamer. Getting shitty about the definition of a word like "gamer" and who it is applied to as a label is like getting into a YouTube comments argument with someone named #YOLOSwag420 about whether "Best Bass Drop Evar!!!1!.mp3" is dubstep, brostep, DnB or [insert word here]step.
PC gamers end up coming across as massive cunts because we're all high on our own hubris when we start talking about how superior our hardware is. It's true - PC hardware is far superior to consoles, but that's because we sink a metric fucktonne more money into it. You can't make a profitable console without using dated-as-soon-as-it's-released architecture so of course your $3000 PC leaves a fat stinking turd on the console's performance scores.
You'd still call someone who plays 40h/week of Starcraft on a $300 rig with 10 year old hardware and a roller-ball mouse a hardcore gamer, so what makes the 40h/week console kiddies on their $300 consoles with inferior specs to your rig different?
Both sides start getting a little delusional as fanaticism takes over from cold, hard logic.
Logical Fallacies
Where you can feel justified in kicking up a stink in the whole PC vs Consoles debate is when one side starts grunting out "facts" that are about as solid as fresh ejaculate.
"Consoles are cheaper" False: PC's can be kept running for a long time with less upgrades than the cost of buying a new console every few years. Factor in TV cost, paying more for AAA releases, lack of a distribution platform like Steam and an order of magnitude less cheap/free indie games than on PC, then consoles don't actually come out that much cheaper. Of course if you spend $3000 on your gaming rig every 2 years you have enough disposable income that the point is moot.
"You can use a controller on PC anyway" True, but with the following caveats: You lose out on the fact that unless it was a console port to begin with, your game is designed for PC and keyboard/mouse controls. If it was a console port then you'll get a better experience playing on console because:
- Your console is probably already set up to be played on a TV from a couch
- The game is optimised for console hardware that is nice and consistent and heavily reduced chance of crashes
- You can actually play multiplayer (the downside to emulators on PC)
"Consoles need aim assist" True, but it goes both ways. The console's player's fallacy is claiming it's not present. The PC player's fallacy is in thinking it matters. I'm guilty of the latter and I love to argue it with all sorts of colourful metaphors. (this almost deserves a seperate post!)
Aim assist exists. It is hardcoded into console FPS games to account for the fact that even with acceleration, you can't get the precise control possible with a mouse. No menu option will turn that off. You just get used to it and it becomes natural to how you play the game.
Ignoring business reasons, it's also why cross-platform games don't exist: To be fair, aim assist would have to be disabled for console, or enabled for PC. Disabled: console players get raped without lube because they lack accuracy. Enabled: PC player's jimmies get rustled because they can't aim where they want. In both cases, the cross-platform game alienates an audience because it doesn't conform with everything else out there.
Aim assist is also sneered at due to poor implmentation. Case in point: Call of Duty. teh 360°quickscopez squeakers makes any gamer that looks at aim assist logically want to start planning the Final Solution. Just because you're good at abusing broken game mechanics to secure kills doesn't mean you are pro. It means you are good at abusing broken game mechanics. Competitive console Halo players don't win matches by using the rocket-sword glitch. Same reason why I can't take "quickscopers" seriously. On PC it's called aim-botting.
And finally: let's wrap up this wall of text by addressing my conceit. If I detach my opinion from logic, consoles are not, in fact, "bad" because of aim assist. All console players are lumped together in the same game. With the same limitations. With the same broken game mechanics. With the same innate compensation for any shortcomings. They play their game and enjoy it. I play mine and enjoy it. Just because a mouse and keyboard is better, it won't stop a a dirty console peasant's brain from generating "fun" while playing with his dirty console peasant friends.
Ultimately this post won't change certain strongly held opinions, even my own, but I can appreciate arguments for both sides. It's the fiction-laden stuff I can't.
