Your top 5 platforms?

Ah, didnt see Brers post, carry on.

jawafour » 26 Jun 2014, 12:04 wrote:

Winckle wrote:Anyone who doesn't list PC as top probably either hasn't thought about it logically, or doesn't play games on a PC for some reason.

Or they prefer the feel and vibrancy of original kit and media above the blandness and clincal aspects of emulation.

I understand your angle of thinking, Winckle, and I can appreciate the benefits offered by emulation - by it's a tad presumptious to say that people aren't thinking logically.

If I play a game on an computer at full screen with the original controller hooked up to a television/display of the appropriate era, with the device being used to run the software behind a curtain say, then how could you know the difference?

We will assume for the thought experiment that the emulator can run the game well enough that a human could not distinguish e.g. Wind Waker on Dolphin, or Super Mario Bros on any NES emulator.

The game is the thing. Anything else is consumer fetishism.

Winckle, I agree that it's terrific how older systems can be emulated by a PC - and I can see the benefits from such an approach. But it's not for me; at least, not if there's a choice. I wouldn't label my preference as a "fetish"; and I appreciate that, say, Dolphin runs N64 games technically better than the N64. I prefer the experience of using the original kit to play the original games - warts 'n all.

1. PC - still the most powerful, adaptable and competitive platform around.

2. PS3 - started out as the underdog compared to 360 in my eyes but eventually endeared itself later on.

3. Gamecube - last "gamer's console" Nintendo made. A wonderfully designed device hardware wise and featured a lot of brilliant games you could not find anywhere else.

4. Nintendo DS - Still the best handheld console of all time. 3DS still does not have the library to compete.

5. Nintendo 64 - close call between this and PS2. N64 gets the spot purely because it has more games that I still yearn to play now.

NickSCFC » Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:26 pm wrote:Nowadays PC gaming is just console gaming with a higher resolution and frame-rate

I think it is more the other way around. Consoles these days are just PCs with poorer graphics, more expensive games and no upgrade capacity. PC also has superior backwards comparability; though it can be finicky at times (I tried getting Fallout 3 to run on my current quad-core Windows 8 machine and it was a bitch to get running stable, requiring modifying config files and such; but at least I managed which is the main thing).

Also, I think we are currently in a pretty good time for PC gaming. Console exclusives are much fewer than they were in the past so you aren't losing as much by ignoring them, there is a very vibrant indie scene, prices are quite competitive for games and hardware components are dirty cheap compared to equivalent prices in the past.

Winckle » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:56 pm wrote:The game is the thing. Anything else is consumer fetishism.

What a wonderfully pretentious way to display your prejudices.

Consumer fetishism is great. I know that's what it is and I strawberry floating love it. Cardboard slip cases, steelbooks, embossed lithographic covers... that's my joint right there.

Learning Curve » Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:12 pm wrote:I tried getting Fallout 3 to run on my current quad-core Windows 8 machine and it was a bitch to get running stable

Fallout 3 has ALWAYS been a bitch to get running stable, irrespective of platform.

I didn't list the PC as I don't have as many fond gaming memories associated with it as I do consoles .

I currently do all my gaming on PC though as its open nature allows me to use a variety of software and utilities to overcome my physical limitations which now prevent me from using games consoles.

Winckle » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:56 pm wrote:

jawafour » 26 Jun 2014, 12:04 wrote:

Winckle wrote:Anyone who doesn't list PC as top probably either hasn't thought about it logically, or doesn't play games on a PC for some reason.

Or they prefer the feel and vibrancy of original kit and media above the blandness and clincal aspects of emulation.

I understand your angle of thinking, Winckle, and I can appreciate the benefits offered by emulation - by it's a tad presumptious to say that people aren't thinking logically.

If I play a game on an computer at full screen with the original controller hooked up to a television/display of the appropriate era, with the device being used to run the software behind a curtain say, then how could you know the difference?

We will assume for the thought experiment that the emulator can run the game well enough that a human could not distinguish e.g. Wind Waker on Dolphin, or Super Mario Bros on any NES emulator.

The game is the thing. Anything else is consumer fetishism.

I think the fundamental difference is that you'd have to go through all the trouble to set it up. And even then the whirr of fans would probably give it away.

Emulation is, sadly, far from perfect. For most purposes it's perfectly adequate, but it's never quite the same as when it's on the original host platform, even when you're playing with an original controller.