I admit it. I broke down again and bought a console as the NCAA football title isn't available for the PC and it looked like one "killer app." The console now sits, as each one before it, on the shelf gathering dust while my PC continues to get a workout. While it is true that the games are much, much better than from even a few years ago, consoles still have some ground to make up in areas of gameplay, depth, online play, and why yes, even those highly-touted graphics. There are also cost issues with consoles. While I have played my new Xbox 360 a fair amount, it has failed to take the place of my PC as my platform of choice.

Gameplay is very, very good for most of the Xbox 360 titles I purchased, and is identical for sports games on the PC; but playing games with the PC is just flat better. The one thing that consoles have never been able to shed is the button-mashing feel of the dual-analog gamepad. Even with twelve buttons on the pad, there doesn't seem to be enough room for all the functions of a particular game. For example, learning to play Ghost Recon and remember all the crouch-jump-cover-lean machinations with the gamepad is cumbersome and easily forgotten. That leads to furious button-mashing during firefights as the player desperately hopes to press the correct combination to get his digital self to react in the correct manner. There is also nothing that matches the WASD-mouse combinations for shooters. Trying to move Agent 47 in "Hitman: Bloodlines" with my left thumb and look in the correct direction with my right thumb has the bald-headed protagonist lumbering down hallway drifting left and right, speeding up and slowing down like a drunk looking for the bathroom. The camera also has a tendency to drift upwards as I move so every few moments I have to physically move it back down so I'm not starting at 47's feet. It's akin to having a mouse that always drifts back towards the user. Having to constantly nudge the controls to maintain a frame-of-reference isn't a deal-breaker, but it removes the verisimilitude one can achieve with the PC's smoother control scheme. Until consoles can shed the ubiquitous gamepad, certain genres of games will always suffer from not-quite-natural gameplay.

Console games have suffered from depth issues in the past. Now that is not so much the case, but there does seem to be an element or nuance missing that one gets with some of the better-designed PC titles. Chrome Hounds, one of the Xbox 360's hit titles is a prime example. It is a fun game, with online play, a steep learning curve, and a great set of graphics. It is also a bit hollow. There isn't a developed story or plotline, and while that may not be the point for an arcade-like game, it makes the game feel a bit soulless when compared to titles like Mechwarrior. Even Hitman: Bloodlines, which is a cinematic game that relies on atmosphere and feel is missing in this area. There is no back-story or plotline for Agent 47--even in Hitman 2 there was a story that tied the missions together. Here, you just mysteriously appear from locale to locale. It isn't to say that these games are bad--I truly like them--but there is definitely a feeling like something is missing. Even the acclaimed and popular Halo suffered from this: "You are the Master Chief and aliens have invaded," was the extent of the back-story. Contrast that with graphically inferior, but much more expansive PC game Darwinia. What it comes down to is creativity. The designers of console games seem to be content to continually repackage the same working formula and force-feed it to a hungry public. Console games are big-budget Hollywood productons, where the more creative PC games are arthouse productions. One type is entertaining, the other type is absorbing. I have yet to become addicted to a console game but the list of my PC addictions go back almost twenty years--from the original "Sid Meier's Pirates!" to my current drug "World of Warcraft." Warcraft being so absorbing that it even has my wife addicted. It continues to feel as though console designers are building code aimed at thirteen- or fourteen-year-old boys while the actual video game market has an average age of forty-one and is just over half female [1]. While consoles have made great strides in the depth of play they offer, the PC is still king in creating immersive environments and offering creative development.

Online play on the console is a nice addition but suffers from two big issues: the technology is implemented in a restrictive fashion and the services are not free. If you want to spend hours digitally fragging your friends, you will have to pay Microsoft for the privilege through Xbox:Live. With PC games you don't. Having to pay for a service on a console that is free with PC games is a bit irksome--it reminds me of days of CompuServe and America Online. I imagine one day, if it hasn't been done already, someone will hack the consoles and allow direct hookups to the internet; for the casual user, though, it's either pay Microsoft or don't go online. Also, don't confuse online play with total connectivity and freedom. While you can play online, even communicate online via voice while playing, this can only be done how and when the game designers intend. This may drive compatibility, but also hampers choice and innovation. Apple has been delegated to an also-ran in the PC business because of that sort of approach. Rigidly controlling the technology and forcing users to pay for a commodity that is freely available elsewhere on a different platform is a strategic mistake and is a clear area where the PC has superiority over console games.

Finally, while the graphics on the Xbox360 are cutting-edge and look wonderful in high-definition, they are not necessarily better than on the PC and in some cases the flourishes make things actually look less realistic. During the cut-scenes in NCAA 07, when the quarterback walks up to the line of scrimmage, or there is some other panoramic view, the graphics clearly the best that have even been put forth in a game, but they also look horribly plastic. All the lighting, shadows, and shaders can't help the robotic way everything seems to move. The models have a goodly amount of polygons but the effect is ruined by poor animation. Aliasing is also a huge issue and destroys whatever realism the textures seek. You may be able to see well-shaded arm muscles on the quarterback as he looks over the line but then you notice the jagged border between his arm and the field. Chrome Hounds has a similar problem, the lighting and graphics are pretty, but the explosion effects are not up to par, the backgrounds are curiously less-well rendered then the models, plus everything moves about stiffly. This is unacceptable in a game that is reportedly supposed to tax the limit of the processing power of the Xbox 360. World of Warcraft, on the other hand, while being a game whose graphics will not make anyone's polygon calculator break, has a wealth of smooth movement along with environments and player models that blend seamlessly--at least on high graphics settings. I am not trying to compare the high-def graphics of the Xbox to the very computer-like graphics of World of Warcraft, but what I am comparing in the way the entire range of graphics fits together. With the console, it appears as though developers are making specific use of specific features without considering their design as a whole. Cutting-edge graphics and speed-of-calculation engineering is only effective if it appears everywhere, otherwise one notices more where it is not than where it is.

Consoles are expensive. You are trapped into them once you buy them and must pay their manufacturer's premium for whatever add-ons you require. A gamepad for the PC can be as little as 15 dollars, but is 50 for the Xbox 360. The wireless access antenna is $100, I can get a wireless card for my computer for $30. The hard drive is expensive. The memory cards are expensive compared to USB memory keys. The monthly service fee for Xbox:Live is expensive, especially since you also must have an ISP. The games retail for $55 compared to usually $39.99 for PC games. Often the same titles are at least five dollars cheaper for the PC. I can do more with my PC, more cheaply, and add to it much more cheaply, than I can do with my Xbox. PCs, of course, are more expensive up front, but are also vastly more useful. The PC can be a tool as well as a toy, where the console cannot. PCs are a commodity and competition has driven the prices down, where the consoles are a bit of a monopoly, and the users of those consoles must pay for the privilege of being a consumer.

The bottom line is that I can carry my computer--a Dell XPS notebook--anywhere and game. I can play anywhere I want and with the increasing number of free wireless hotspots this includes MMOGs. I can be the ultimate dork and play Warcraft while drinking a beer at the bar and while on a flight-path alt-tab over to MLB.TV and check the score, or somewhere else online--even to pay my ISP bill. With a notebook, this certainly is less the case, but with a desktop, swapping parts out to upgrade my graphic capability is easy. I can use a mouse, a gamepad, a throttle-and-yoke, a keyboard, a steering wheel, almost anything to control my PC. I can use my real-life aviation headset and plug it into my computer--using adapters--and speak with a virtual air-traffic contoller using VATSIM. I can get lost in the depth of Warcraft or in the wonderful cyberpunk of Darwinia and let the world melt away. These are the things that make gaming an enjoyable pursuit. These are the things that have me working some days on a single hour of sleep. These are the things that park my wife in front of an LCD screen rather than the Xbox. Until consoles can capture that same slice of magic, the PC will be the gaming king.

1. Wendland, Mike. "Gamers: they're not who you think they are" Detroit Free Press 27 Sep 06. Referenced electronically at http://ej.typepad.com/tech/2006/09/gamers_theyre_n.html