You're not everyone though. I'm heavily on the PC side, but I know people who'd rather play FPS on the console because having the limitation adds a different aspect to the gameplay.

Turning rate is a lot more limited, and I can see that being more fun. You can spin around way too fast in some FPS games.

I far prefer the keyboard / mouse (or in my case trackball) combo.. in fact I do not own a controller for my pc at all.

While I am definitely on the PC, mouse/keyboard side of things, I can't imagine trying to play MotoGP or some of my other racing games without my trusty Logitech Controller.

I still have the mouse/keyboard for my Dreamcast and the keyboard adapter(PS2 type) for my Saturn.

For you, yes, they might be better that way.  However, "SOME" people prefer the controller.  I would never have bought any console I own if it was just keyboard / mouse.  I already have a computer to do that.

The historic reason why consoles were popular is no longer the current reason either and isn't really any issue.  $600 for a PS3 when it came out was very expensive.

July 24, 2010 9:17:29 AM

For you, yes, they might be better that way. However, "SOME" people prefer the controller. I would never have bought any console I own if it was just keyboard / mouse. I already have a computer to do that. The historic reason why consoles were popular is no longer the current reason either and isn't really any issue. $600 for a PS3 when it came out was very expensive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

600 dollars IS expensive until you consider a good gaming desktop computer ranges in the 2000 or more range

There is also always the point that a computer can accomplish so much more than just gaming.

I guess no one remembers the Dreamcast? It had Quake 3 and you could play with PC users. I set up a DC server and connected to it via my PC. When all was said and done I had racked up over 500 kills...and 2 deaths.

Not even then. When they came out you'd get the same thing for $1000, now you get way more. Even in 2006 a 3 ghz processor, 256mg video card, and 256mb of RAM wasn't very expensive.

Just matching the console's specs isn't enough; you have to match its performance.  Consoles get a little extra mileage out of their lower specs because they're standardized, so PC's generally need higher specs to compete.  That said, I'll agree that 2000 would be on the high end.

and since they aren't running an OS and a bunch of other applications in the background. 

That's a very strange thing to say. If it wasn't for the Wii's controller, it would have failed? Let's see what else we could add to that category. If it wasn't for the bluray player would the PS3 have failed? If it wasn't for the online connectivity, would the 360 fail? You're talking about something that the system was built around and saying without it it woudl have failed except all of them has some sort of focus, otherwise we wouldn't have 4, yes 4 solid gaming machines to choose for, more if you count handhelds and the iproducts. Let's take away the controls from the PS3 and 360 and give them joysticks, would that make them fail? Utter. Nonsense. The Wii has a lot to offer,by the way, not just a controller.

Anyway. No surprise on the PC gamers spanking the console players. The precision just isn't there with the controllers. As for playing with controllers, I don't want a mouse and keyboard for my console. If i want to play a game with PC controls, I'd play on the PC. When I play a console game, it's a kick yoru feet up, sit back with my wireless controller kind of affair for me. My PC gaming, though sometimes leisure, is often more intense and focused and complex than my console games. I want to keep those two separate, otherwise, i wouldn't have two gaming machines.

srsly.. why do random ppl keep jumping in quoting replies and completely misconstruing them because they didn't bother to follow the rest of the conversation?