>> |
I knew I'd have to post this again eventually
10/05/11(Wed)05:44 No.112430138It's
sad how quickly the "master race" tries to sweep the truth under the
rug by burying it under such irrelevant information, as all the problems
OP had could have occurred just as easily if he had used any other
processor.
"So which platform really is better?"
You want the truth, /v/? Well here it is: -
Console gaming IS cheaper. The "master race" loves to tout how cheaply
they can build a rig that lasts years. Unforunately, they purposefully
leave out some very important information: in PC building, you get what
you pay for. These "cheap builds" aren't the ones being touted as
running the most graphically intensive games on max settings; they're
running stuff on Medium (which, for many games, ends up looking on par
[or sometimes worse, depending on how bad the PC port is] than their
console counterparts). The builds that are maxing out graphically
intensive games ARE expensive as shit when compared to consoles. Hell,
just look at /g/'s own Falcon Guide: even the bottom-of-the-barrel
"Destitute" build is $224, making it more costly than a 360 and slightly
less than a PS3--but with this build, you won't achieve the beautiful,
"Beat this, consoles!" settings seen in screenshots. Even worse, the
"Enthusiast" build is over $1400. That's WAY more than any current gen
console, period. "But those builds are expensive because they last for
years!" Not true, which brings us to the next "master race" lie... -
Consoles DO last longer than PC builds. This doesn't even need a winded
explanation like the last one: If you try to play a graphically
intensive game from 2011 on a 2005 PC, you'll be lucky if you get good
framerates on Medium. Meanwhile, a 360 from 2005 can play games from
2011 perfectly. Also consider that console generations, on average, last
from 5-10 years. Try playing a 2011 game on a 2001 comp--if you can
even get it to run, which is the next bulletpoint... |