"Avowed Hates Men"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtFZvRxIffA
To no one's surprise, the game is nothing but insufferable girl bosses, thinly veiled anti-whiteness, and men who are either evil, corrupt, incompetent, cowardly, or just literally homosexual. It's a repeat of Outer Worlds, which shouldn't come as a shock to anyone because the devs are still the exact same leftist feminist dipshits who treat their game dev jobs as merely another opportunity for rank activism.
Outside of the culture war content, everything else is also terrible. The UI is garbage. The game is full of bugs and jank. The combat looks soft and boring. The game's structure is at least 15 years outdated. The story is beyond cliche. Nothing about this woke turd looks good.
An interesting phenomenon is the "console exclusive" bump we always see from such games. There are people out there praising this game for no other reason than Playstation gamers can't play it (right now). Same shit happened with Starfield, not to mention every Sony exclusive ever. These games always have lower scores and player reviews on PC because PC gamers are not ego-invested the same way that console fanboys have always been.
I have used both for my entire life and I wouldn't claim either to be "objectively superior." They both have their uses.
Ports frequently suck. Go figure. It goes both ways.
/eyeroll
You shouldn’t write stuff like that. It’s really gay.
I have to ask the question then: In what specific aspects is the console superior? I know you're not saying it's superior in totality, but if they both have their uses, one must have a superiority in specific instances. So what are they? Vague fencesitting is all well and good, but examples are always going to be better.
One of the few things consoles can do which PCs can't is offer far easier and greater access to same room multiplayer gaming. The ability to pick up just the console and controllers and take that somewhere else is significantly easier than hoofing an entire PC setup.
However the cost of such mobility is often the literal loss of mass a PC can afford for hardware, meaning poorer performances for the same titles.
Easier, yes. But not exclusive. There are ways that can still be done on a PC. And that's pretty much the only real benefit of a console. Is that it's easier to use. But versatility, access, power, library, control, etc are all better on PC.
I know you're not SR388, but he's making it out that the advantages and disadvantages of both console and PC relatively equal out, and it's flat out that they don't. The ease of use of a console does not outweigh the vast ocean of benefits from a PC.
Yes, that was my point.
There may be other more subjective issues which can apply but objectively apart from the mobility issue a PC is going to stomp all over a console offering the same titles, which even then is slightly disingenuous since PCs can not only allow access to new releases but also decades old ones with emulators.
/goes back to playing Sid Meier's Colonization from 1994
Agreed.
Simplicity, at least until recent generations.
You could buy any console, plug in 2 wires (one of which color coded) and just turn it on with full functionality out the box. Minimal troubleshooting necessary for most of its lifetime (usually until hardware failures), minimal effort to use, minimal difficulty in that use for the entire age spectrum (so it could equally be a console for the kids and the adults). And for a family usage, simple to move around the house for public or private play sessions.
Whereas the opposite is true for computers, until recent generations the closest you could get to that was pre-built ones. Which we all know were both incredibly poorly made and usually filled with bloatware that would take effort to clear to be fully functional. Building your own would provide a superior and often cheaper option, but that requires considerable knowledge and effort.
And while that might seem like not a big deal, it was a very huge one before computers become "multiple to a household" norm. The balance has skewed heavily towards PC in the last decade because everyone has one now anyway, while the consoles started emulating the worst traits of PC (accounts for everything, massive install times, constant software issues).
Cool, we're talking about the history and not comparisons right here right now. Why is that? Oh right, because that's all the consoles have, is a historical advantage, not a modern one.
I wouldn't say otherwise. Consoles recently are completely dead because they emulated all those worse traits of PCs to try and become more than they were (likely spurred by the popularity of the PS2/3 as DVD/BluRay players and how much they massively pushed their sales up).
Xbox hasn't been relevant in a decade and PS5 is so dead that new games are still releasing on the PS4.
Nintendo however is still capable of providing those same advantages and went back to such after the Wii/WiiU became more complicated, while also adding simple portability. Meaning you don't even need to unhook/rehook to hand it to your girlfriend or kid, you just hand them a small console. So they point still stands entirely there, especially as the most direct competitor in that way ("gaming laptops") are a dead meme.
The one superior aspect that won me over to the console faggot side is that when a game says "PS4" on it, it will run on a PS4. With a PC it's always a fucking gamble, even if you have the necessary specs. I do not have the patience after a long day of work to endlessly troubleshoot to get a game to start up that should easily run.
99.99% of the time this is not an issue with a game you've already played before on that PC. I can concede that initial install/bootup can be an issue, or even an update can cause issues. But this issue is largely a relic of years gone past. It does still happen, but it's far rarer than it used to be. And the idea that it's widespread? Nah, it simply isn't. I might as well point to the "Red Ring of Death" and suggest that consoles are prone to being bricked. It was a problem at one point, but these days it's rare.
I do get what you mean, but I disagree that it's enough of an issue in the first place. It's unlikely that I will be starting a new game of something I've never played before on a weekday, nor have I found it to be a significant enough hurdle that 2 minutes of searching doesn't find a solution for.
The first decade+ of PC gaming is basically a massive gamble to get to run whatsoever. If you don't have ScummVM, or the correct version of Windows, or this specific version of DirectX or this or that then a game from 1994 or even 2004 will just not operate unless someone has put in the considerable effort to make it runnable on modern hardware. And that often needs to be repeated on every game individually. This is why GOG is such a popular platform, because they are dedicated to solving that problem with an entire massive team instead of fan-hobbyists.
Whereas if I want to play an obscure PS1 game, it will work on any PS1 I can find that still operates short of region locking shenanigans.
I agree its not an issue everyone will run into, but its an issue that becomes more pressing as years go on. Every year dozens of software changes can just become the pin that ends a certain game's operational ability.
I wasn't even really thinking of issues with hardware or updates causing the game to not run (like a game hating a perfectly fine graphics card for no apparent reason), my experience with PC gaming was reading the necessary specs for a game before buying. Seeing that I not only meet the minimum but actually the recommended ones. And then finding that it still shits itself.
I will concede that the benchmark downloads that are always available for bigger games nowadays are quite the game changer.