Is it really pointless buying a mac pro, if you also want to game?

[Mackilroy]

And I guess you need a really modern computer with a higher end graphics card to beat a console's graphic quality.

Regarding computer monitor: I know for a fact that many people use cheap 24" monitors (that cost around $300). I can't imagine graphics looking great on such office quality monitors.

But I may be wrong. I judge monitors at their ability to show photography and video well. The well defined pixels of a video game may be a different world altogether.

Comparing Call of Duty on my Xbox 360 and plasma television against my computer with a 20" Dell panel (TN, even), the computer wins, hands down.

Regarding GPUs, you can get a very nice card for quite cheap (<$80) that will easily beat what the PS3 or Xbox 360 can output.

Also, if you're going to be wanting to do any kind of professional editing with photos, you'd want an IPS screen, and those don't come cheap. A plasma TV or a TN panel like my Dell don't compare.

 

[Icaras]

My comments on Plasma screens referred to movie watching. It was probably not correct to assume plasma would beat LCD also in games.

Yea, with movies, I will definitely agree Plasmas are superior to LCDs.

Did you read the comment by ildondeigiocchi I quoted above about games looking crappy on consoles in comparison on computers (PCs or Macs running Windows) Do you agree?

No, I don't think they look "crappy" compared to high end PC games. But on the higher spectrum of graphics, I will say PC games are definitely superior. The only time consoles ever look better than PC games are in the beginning of a new console's life cycle, where the difference of quality tend to overlap. But because consoles generally last on the shelf for 4-6 years before its next major revision, PC graphics quickly surpass console again. This has been proven in all past generations of consoles and you'll see it happen again whenever we see the new Xbox come out. I'm pretty sure the next generation Xbox will rival anything and everything the PC currently has to offer, and then some.

And I guess you need a really modern computer with a higher end graphics card to beat a console's graphic quality.

At the very least not an integrated GPU but if you mean pristine graphics with a respectable framerate, then yea, for sure.

Regarding computer monitor: I know for a fact that many people use cheap 24" monitors (that cost around $300). I can't imagine graphics looking great on such office quality monitors.

But I may be wrong. I judge monitors at their ability to show photography and video well. The well defined pixels of a video game may be a different world altogether.

Gamers are also consious about pixel response times in computer LCD monitors, as the quality of movement of the content on screen is very important. You don't want any ghosting or any nastiness like that, though monitors these days are generally good about that anyway.

 

[Infrared]

I'm very likely going to buy a PS3, which would be my first game console.

My comments on Plasma screens referred to movie watching. It was probably not correct to assume plasma would beat LCD also in games.

Did you read the comment by ildondeigiocchi I quoted above about games looking crappy on consoles in comparison on computers (PCs or Macs running Windows) Do you agree?

And I guess you need a really modern computer with a higher end graphics card to beat a console's graphic quality.

Would this be a console with 256MB of system RAM?

When was the last time you saw any new computer for
sale with that little RAM?

ps

I'm considering a PS3 myself because there are certain
convenient factors to it. So I'm not anti-console.

 

[TheSpaz]

I play first person shooters. Call of Duty and Left for Dead.

1. Left for Dead isn't available on the PS3 (I don't want an XBox)

2. It's harder to control and aim using a controller and joysticks than it is with a keyboard and mouse.

 

[kalex]

TheSpaz - Totally agree, I can't play first person shooters on PS3, Xbox, or any gaming console. its alot easier for me to aim with a mouse than with a controller.

 

[ildondeigiocchi]

So you are connecting your computer to a plasma screen or an LCD screen?

Couldn't imagine great graphics on most computer monitors. Even the new iMac monitors pale in comparison with a plasma display.

And: are your running Windows on your Mac through parallels for PC gaming?

I run my games on my 30" Apple Cinema Display and I must disagree with you with regard to LCD's being inferior to Plasmas. LCD displays display much more accurate color than Plasma without taking into consideration Plasma's color bleed issue. Anyways, my monitor is able to display games at 2560 by 1600 which is beyond 1080p on Plasma screens which makes the image much sharper. I sometimes run my games on my Samsung 32" 1080p LCD HDTV and I have to say that the image quality is much better on the 30"ACD. Also take into consideration that the 30" ACD is an IPS monitor meaning it delivers very accurate color.

Simpler as in: adhering to and meeting various system requirements for each game. Upgrading graphics card to stay current and making sure drivers are always up to date. Configuring PC controllers for most games if that is the desired control method. Running the game inside an OS, which in turn also deals with updates and technical issues. Simple as that, you mean?

Console: Buy console and game. Insert game. Turn on power. Play.

Before you shoot me, I'm both a console and a PC gamer, but to say gaming on the PC is "more simple", is just fiction.

I meant simpler in the sense that the controls are much simpler. The X-Box 360 and PS3 controllers are not always the best option for FPS in the sense that it is much easier to aim with a mouse and keyboard. It's a matter of personal preference. With regard to graphics cards if one buys a high end one it should last them 2-3 years. It's only normal that one has to upgrade every few years but that's also the time period it takes a person to either buy a new computer or upgrade their internals to be able to run other applications and OS's well. Plus, PC games have so much more detailed and polished graphics. It's only normal one has to upgrade their system to keep up with the improving graphics. Anyways, staying true OP question buying a mac pro if one also wants to game is not pointless. It handles it just fine. Let's not get off topic on this thread.

 

[ildondeigiocchi]

TheSpaz - Totally agree, I can't play first person shooters on PS3, Xbox, or any gaming console. its alot easier for me to aim with a mouse than with a controller.

Completely agree with you. Aiming in FPS is so much easier with a mouse than it is with console controllers.

 

[Icaras]

I meant simpler in the sense that the controls are much simpler. The X-Box 360 and PS3 controllers are not always the best option for FPS in the sense that it is much easier to aim with a mouse and keyboard. It's a matter of personal preference. With regard to graphics cards if one buys a high end one it should last them 2-3 years. It's only normal that one has to upgrade every few years but that's also the time period it takes a person to either buy a new computer or upgrade their internals to be able to run other applications and OS's well. Plus, PC games have so much more detailed and polished graphics. It's only normal one has to upgrade their system to keep up with the improving graphics. Anyways, staying true OP question buying a mac pro if one also wants to game is not pointless. It handles it just fine. Let's not get off topic on this thread.

Agreed And on that note, I also agree FPS controls are much more simpler on a keyboard and mouse.