Since 28 is a fan of Depp's early work I'll answer greene's question.
There are actually a couple types of games I enjoy watching, but do not enjoy playing.

Point and Click Adventure Games
I don't find the gameplay to be engaging enough to keep my interest if I'm playing, but have no issue with it if I'm watching someone else. There are a couple exceptions, like https://www.mobygames.com/game/discworld]
Discworld [/url] that managed to hold my attention, but mostly I'd prefer to watch them. Also;

Terrible Games
I've never understood why someone would subject themselves to horrible games on purpose, but it's fun to watch the train wreck. I generally stop playing a game immediately if I'm not enjoying it, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying watching someone else play the same game.

Annnnd, to put us back on track, I'll resubmit 28's question:

Way way back in the 70s i built my first computer and a modem and went on to a new world known as the internet aka arp net where i found a collage server with a game online it blew my mind for that night i met my first friend online in england and learned as others followed we all are not as bad or scary peeps, i became a online gamer and in one year had frineds in 20 countys the game was a mud and we was on one hell of a adventure that lead me on a path to gaming to this day......

P.S minus the greed to use us as mony income with clients always online, its still nice to see the world playing together in the bigest sandbox there was the internet... just hope they dont kill the soul of gaming for greed as they harvest us as cattle with their servers to count us :(

I was referring to games like Spellforce or Some of the total war series with that choice. You have one hero that you can level up, gear up, suit up (I guess that's called doll up) and then you have like 100 spearmen, 50 archer etc. I am guessing you understood it like Baldur's Gate.

How about something like Wizardry 4, where you have one character who can level up during the course of the game (though, in Wizardry 4, there's no XP and you only level up when you find a pentagram on a new floor), but you can (and, in fact, have to) summon monsters that do most of the fighting for you?

That would be option "2. Single Hero with some side companions that you can't control directly. (like Diablo 2-3 or NWN1)" But that's my personal view on the subject since by "army" I understand a large number of individuals.

Hi there guys, I'm Michael of Valdosta, Georgia.

Are 27 creatures enough for it to be an army?

(In Wizardry 4, you summon 3 groups of monsters, each of which can have up to 9 monsters. Not every monster type comes in groups that large, of course; on the other hand, just like in other classic Wizardry games, it is possible for certain monster types to call for help.)

I don't care what anybody says! Legend of the Dragoon should have gotten several sequels years and years ago. In fact it was supposed to but when I looked it up if I remeber right. The guy in charge of the project got promoted higher up in Sony and and the team got disbanded to work on other projects.

Single Hero. With mabye a few compainions along the way. Like the recent Fall Out games. Always liked the idea of a lone gunslinger. A cowboy beating the odds through sheer grit and determination.
Always gameplay before graphics. There are alot of Atari games that are still super fun and addictve. Even Pong really. I know what you mean though. There is something about those old RPGs with those pre rendered backgrounds like Legend of the Dragoon and FF7 that does something for me.

Serious question

Is there any reason at all to use a console instead of PC other then maybe not being able to wait for exsclusvies to come to PC or exclusvies that don't come to PC.

Sure, it's cheaper than a gaming PC (at least the hardware, games might be more expensive), you don't have to worry about CPU and GPU and games not running on your rig, anyone can place it in their living room, plug it into their TV and sit on their couch while playing (doing that with a PC is possible, but more complicated and you'd have to know how). Basically, other than the reasons you named, it's mostly for those who can't be bothered to tinker with their PC and just want plug and play.

But that's a general question, not a personal one about other members gaming life ... (Personally I only own an old PS2 bought second hand, and I hardly ever use it, I'm actually on the pro-"PC only" side, and I was still able to answer the question.) For the sake of continuity and you getting a more interesting reply, let me rephrase a bit for the next person:

Question

To those of you who own both a gaming PC and a modern console: What were your reasons for buying the console? Was it mainly the lure of console exclusive games or something else (as well)?

People seem to be starting to mix things up here, getting a tad hard to track, with people answering random past questions and discussing answers. The idea was to answer the previous poster's question and then ask your own.
Not that it wouldn't actually be nice to have a questions list (with links to posts, in the OP, and other reserved posts after it when needed?) and have people answer whichever and however many they want and add if and when they want to, but that's not the idea currently, so...

That would be a nice thread!! Zero chance of me maintaining that list in the OP, though! :)

True. To your question I bought a PS3 because I already had games for it that I shared with my old friend and roomate at the time as well as a few ps1 games. Also with the Playstaion store there were a few games I never had on PS2 that I could download and enjoy and the rest had been re-released as hd remakes. So I felt between my Ps3, PC, and 3DS I had a pretty all encomposing way to get the games I wanted. The only exception being a few exclusives to wii or xbox. Like Gears of war which I ended up playing 1 through 3 with friends anyway.

The way I see it, in the present, not really.

Historically, however, there were some good reasons to use consoles.

* In ancient times, computer games tended to be distributed on floppy disks; this meant long load times and having to switch disks (because the capacity of a floppy disk is very limited). Consoles, however, stored their games on cartridges, which had very fast load times, and, unlike floppies, would increase in capacity over time.

* Then came hard drives, which took away some of the advantages that consoles had. However, a PC game would still need to be installed to take advantage of them, and hard drives, while much faster for loading, were still slower than cartridges.

* Then came CD-ROMs, giving PC games access to much more storage space, and in theory, fewer disc changes. Consoles still had the advantage of faster load times.

* Then, some consoles threw away their load time advantage by switching to CD-ROMs. At this point, the only real advantage that consoles had was that you didn't have to worry about installing or configuring games before you could play them. Some console games even started to require disc changes.

* Then came internet connections. PCs got them first, and then they came to consoles. With internet, combined with console hard drives, consoles lost their zero configuration advantage, and therefore no longer have a real advantage over PCs for gaming, except for things like exclusives.

Edit: Since the thread seems to be in need of a new question, here's one:

Suppose you have a game that can either play in 640x480 resolution with 16 colors, or in 320x200 resolution with 256 colors. Between those modes, which video mode would you choose? (Historically, there was a time when these were the top-of-the-line video resolutions; hence why one would have had to make this choice in the past.)