Single player, though frankly it wouldn't have mattered. My biggest problems were graphical/interface issues. Note that I don't just mean low-quality or aging graphics - the original WarCraft was pretty bad but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I'll try to list some, but since I only played it for a few hours sometime last year my memories are a little hazy. Also, if I say something was missing/not there, it may very well have been but it wasn't obvious or easy enough to find.
-Graphically I was unable to tell when units were attacking.

-Caused largely by the above, it took me 2-3 missions to figure out units could attack while moving. Before I figured this out, I was getting quite frustrated that I could find nothing analogous to a "standard" attack-move command so my units would run right past enemies without stopping to kill them.

-Different units were visually indistinguishable, except the main base dude who's only differentiating feature was size.

-No information on the stats and strengths of different units. How much damage does it do? HP? Movement speed? Does it have armor or other damage mitigation? How about penetration? Does it have any advantages/disadvatanges vs. this other unit that costs, looks, and acts the same? What about this other unit that costs a little bit more? The unit all had serial- or model number-like names that didn't hint to the units' purpose. How can I possibly formulate a strategy when I know nothing about my tools other than their cost? I did look through the manual but I can't remember if I found this kind of information there, though it doesn't really matter because this should be obvious in game.

I think that covers the main things. The first two (and other minor issues) I could've gotten used to, but the last two are unforgivable.

The interface in both Supreme commander and TA is actually pretty damn good in my opinion. You just have to check few short keys and after that atleast i was more happy with that than any other RTS. Supreme Commander improved that with its super zoomable camera. I had two monitors before - 24" main screen and 19" just for map.

Also you can actually order units to move at same speed, take certain formations and even attack from different angles at same time (SupCom). Lots of stuff in both - but true enough, they are bit hidden.

Stats - i think some can be seen ingame, but might be not all. There isnt really "penetration/armor" as such, but the bigger units - especially Tier 3 and experiementals will pulverize lesser units with impunity. Also both games have proper nukes, stocking of nukes and anti-nukes - meaning that you can have nice nuclear warfare occisianally ;)

What i like about those games , is that there isnt really "grinding" pew-pew-pew, but rather the units actually pack serious punch (respective of their tier).

I´ve always liked to play on a console, because:
1) I like things with one focus. Usually when anything does more than one thing, it does all of them not as good as they should. If I want to play games, I get a videoconsole.
2) I prefer a gamepad over other gaming devices.
3) If a game is launched on your console, it will be as good or as bad on any console of the same kind. Forget requisites, incompatibilities, etc.
4) No installing, just play the game.
5) I usually like console focused genres more than PC focused genres.
6) Consoles usually last for quite some years, so no need to use more money to keep updated.

That´s why I currently prefer a PC over a console. 1 is no longer the case on videoconsoles, with all that multimedia and application crap. 2 isn´t an advantage either: Some years ago it wasn´t that common, but know most new PC games feature gamepad compatibility. I like 3, but with all that no-1080p no-60fps crap, it ends up being even worse. 4 isn´t happening now, as consoles now require to install the games. Now what usually where console games are getting PC releases, so 5 isn´t active either. And 6 feels now stupid, as console releases are expensive and feature tons of expensive DLC, which makes worse paying one for the console and too much / too many times for each game.

Let´s not even start on how consoles now don´t even try to be backwards compatible with previous ones, even on old digital games. I like to replay games over the years, so that´s a big con for me. And I´m not even talking about emulators, which basically transform a PC into something better than any console...

So in other words. If consoles kept being consoles and companies weren´t jerks ignoring the backwards compatibility, I would support console gaming a lot more. But as now consoles have the worst of both worlds (even worst prices), I´m currently focusing on PC only and I rarely get any console release. I´ve supported many consoles over the years and I´m tired of the crap they are evolving into. PC clearly wins now IMO.

...but if you buy those AAA games new, for the 60-80usd/eur price - youll be paying way way more money for the console over longer period of time vs buying "more expensive" PC.

PC has bigger and more frequent sales. Plain and simple. for example buying Watch Dogs today 60€ on average vs less than 30€ on Kinguin or similar site if youre into seeking the lowest price. Doing the math, you dont have to buy too many AAA games to save money for either more games or the bit higher intial cost.

Personally I dont buy AAA games until they are something like -75% off in summer/christmas sale or so. There is some damn many games to play that i can wait for the price to drop. Never mind the dozens of games from all those humble bundles and others.

Buying PC games is simply dirt cheap these days.

...also with pc its good to remember that when you "eventually" upgrade your computer the older games will work better. I bought Rage years ago and had to find out my then computer couldnt play it as fast as I would have liked. I bought new computer in the beginning of this year (the old one was 4 years old or so) and played through the Rage with max details and smooth as silk.

I pretty much do the same as you. I laugh when I hear PC elitists say I'm dumb because I wait for a price drop to buy many of the AAA games I want to play, but if you change to PC, there's not one of them that won't advice you to wait for Steam Summer sales. F*cking hypocrites. Not to mention PC doesn't get many exclusives anymore aside from Computer Strategy games and indie games that come from starting developers.

Regardless, I think this discussion about systems should cease. What in the beginning was a thread dedicated to video games, it become an arguing ground because of PC elitists. I like gaming, but f*ck! I hate elitism so much. Brings the worst in gaming.

Haha! I'm done. You consider an upgrade of FF3 a newer game than FF VII. You sir are full of sh*t! Not to mention all you provided me is documented proof of how many games xbox 360 has. Nowhere near what I actually asked you. So I advise you to follow your own advice. And I quote: "If you can't argue, you can always ignore" Well so far all you did was ignore what I've been telling you and only posted random stuff.
And as I was saying in my post above, this discussion should cease. You turned this thread into rubbish with your elitism. I would like you to stop posting. If you can't talk about the games or your personal preferences, I'm sure there are other threads designed for what you want to talk about.
Needless to say, from this point on, the thread should only be for talking about games, like the title suggest, and talking about them does not include elitist remarks about systems.

Happy gaming!

First, you said that PCs "let you play decades worth of games". That's kind of debatable once you take into account games that do not work in modern PCs and Windows 7, and there quite a few of them out there. COmpability is an big issue that you are completely ignoring. This is one of the reasons why GOG became successful (by selling old games patched up and ready to work on modern PCs). Unless you keep an old PC, which some people do, you can't guarantee 100% compability with old games.

Second, if you wanted to make your comparison slightly more palatable, then at least add PS1 and PS2 games to the mix. The PS3 is 100% backwards compatible with the PS1 and the first models are also 100% backwards compatible with the PS2 as well.

The thing is: FInal Fantasy was just one example of JRPGs that usually don't come out on PCs. But it's clearly not the only one out there. I have mentioned many of them in my previous post.

Not to mention that both FFVII and FVIII are actually worse on PC thanks to the horrible sound quality compared to the original PS1 versions.

Don't forget to get the console and extract the BIOS yourself.

The point is: the games WORK without an active internet connection and don't need to be tied to an account or anything. You can sell, lend and buy second hand copies, something that you can't do on PCs. This is the point. Of course any downloadable content is tied to the account it was originally bought from, but the base game itself isn't. Even if PSN and Live shut down tomorrow, the physical games will work without issues. If Steam shuts down tomorrow, well, we don't know what will happen.

Can you sell your games on Steam? Can you lend them to your friends? Can you buy second hand Steam games? That's news to me. Please, tell me more about it.

Oh, yeah? And how exactly doesn't the same logic apply to the PC? All the games on PCs need to be designed to work with a keyboard and a mouse, because you simply can't presume that every PC gamer out there has a controller. Same logic.

Definitely there are no console games that could take advantage of wheels+pedals. I have never seen a racing game on a console. Yep. Great argument. Consoles have way more periphals than you imagine, most of them are just not that famous, except for Kinect and Move. Talking about periphals is really stupid, to be honest, each platform has its own share of different periphals. Heck, even the NES already had motion controllers and other obscure stuff. What exactly can you tell me about this, for example: http://www.ladydragon.com/1027steelbattalion.jpg ? What about all the light guns on consoles, for example? The whole "periphals" argument is pretty stupid.

Won't watch it. Coming up with YT videos sounds like lack of arguments to me.

Then i guess Battlefield 4 is also a crappy port? Because it runs like shit on some pretty powerful PCs. Same goes for Watch Dogs, even on a GTX Titan the game runs liks crap. Don't believe me? Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSrFWc7sjJk

The PS4 runs COD Ghosts at 1080p and 60fps, why can't a GTX Titan do the same?

That's cool and all, but have you ever though about the possibility that some people just don't care? Has it ever occurred to you that some people just want to PLAY their game without having to care about settings? You know, maybe people have different tastes i guess? Just wondering.

Of course, but next-gen consoles cost a fraction of the price of a PC with similar performance. You could certainly buy the Xbox One, the PS4, the Wii U and still get some games for the price of a "next-gen PC".

I think you don't know what "usually" means. What he and i said is that action games are more of a console genre and usually con't come out on PCs. Of course there are exceptions, just like there are strategy games on consoles like Endwar, Universe at War, Halo Wars (which was developed by Emsemble), XCOM Enemy Unknown, Supreme Commander, an exclusive Civilization game, and a few others. Heck, even Command and Conquer and Starcraft had console versions, which doesn't mean that strategy is a console genre, it isn't. There are a few games every now and then, but it's a PC oriented genre. Action games, on the other hand, are a console genre mostly.

Can you understand the difference now? Or is it too hard for you to comprehend?

Again, please, PLEASE, look at the definition of the word "USUALLY". Of course there were JRPGS on PCs, but these are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule. I never said that no JRPG has ever been released on the PC. Learn how to interpret stuff. What i said is that it USUALLY JRPGs don't come out on PCs. And that is true. Things like Persona, Shin Megami Tensei, Tales of, Star Ocean, Atelier, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts never came out on PCs.
Yes, because consoles obviously don't have these, you know.

I guess Microsoft has some fake products on their page http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/accessories/thirdparty/flight-sticks

You're being too generous. Even Crosmando could come up wih better arguments than him. And that's quite an achievement.

So, PC games don't have DLCs, then? That's news to me, thanks for the information.

Proof? Or is that another argument that you took off your ass? Do you follow the Xbox Live and PSN sales? If you did, you would have found out that these sales are on par with the discounts on Steam. Oh, and i'm not even mentioning the fact that you can SELL your games if you don't like them and buy in the second hand market. Can you do that on the PC?

And i'm not even taking into account the tons of games you get for free with a Xbox Live/PS+ subscription.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but PC gaming is not cheaper by any means.

Some will work better, others will not work at all.

ah the platform battles! Such a lost art form!
I don't think it ever got anyone anywhere in the history of gaming ;)

personally, I think you should all buy amiga 500 ;)

Oh, yeah, PC gaming is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO huge that the total sales of PC games are ridiculous compared to consoles.

If PC is so fucking huge and awesome, why don't publishers invest on it? Why do crappy ports keep getting released?

This is what you get on PCs all the time: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/28/watch-dogs-on-pc-showing-poor-performance

You have to wait for nvidia, AMD and Ubisoft to sort it out while the console versions is working fine.

I'm mainly a PC gamer myself, but let's be realistic at least for a second.


Pro tip: Final Fantasy III was released in 1990. This is just a remake, if you didn't know.

And there is a whole new universe besides PC gaming that you are ignoring.

Well, if consoles are dying, then are PCs like zombies or something? Because the "dead" consoles still manage to sell far more games than the almighty PC.

hey you forget emulation! Have you counted how many games SNES has? They are still being played.
and what about tag? You are it - tag? And jogging? And chess?

Had Amiga 2000 back "then" - i still regret that we ended up selling in and switching to PC. Would be cool to have one around at house.