PC is the best console

I never once said graphics make a game, I said that they improve your experience. If you were playing these Nintendo games you mention, and had an option to play the game at 30fps with mediocre graphics, and 120fps with ultra graphics; there is absolutely no reason anyone wouldn't choose the latter. Not only do PCs enrich graphics, they vastly improve FPS which is huuuuge in gaming. I don't know if you fully understand what this means, so here's a GIF displaying differences between 15, 30, and 60 FPS: http://i.imgur.com... When you say a lot of people would rather play the newest console exclusives, you're right a lot of people would. Yet, does this make the console better? No, it means (for those people) it has the better games. The performance and versatility of the console has no factor to play when all these people look at is the games. I concede that this is opinionated, yet when comparing the available options more people have their preferred games on PC due to the e sport community. It vastly out numbers anything consoles could try and compete with. There IS a reason Ocarina of Time is listed as the best game after all this time: They don't lower scores of games as time goes on! I don't know what you were thinking with that point, at the time Ocarina had decent if not good graphics for its time. So it scored extremely high, but as time goes on graphics improve and now if most people were to go back and play it, they wouldn't enjoy it as much. Why else would Nintendo improve graphics in their remade works? If graphics weren't so important as my opponent suggests, why did Nintendo make breath of the wild such a stunning game? Graphics DO matter, or else we'd still be playing PONG. The only fair argument against ROMS and emulation is that a large amount of people who aren't tech savvy might have a hard time setting it up. Otherwise, ROMS are easy and safe to find and use. Furthermore, you mention it being illegal to torrent, which you are right. However, it is an option on PC which can be considered a strong pro. You might be hurting developers, but it is an option non the less. You say Nintendo can't be far behind PC, yet the NES had around 700 games, Wii had around 1500, so we might assume if Nintendo had 1000 games per system (an unfair assumption considering not all their platforms were successful) then we get 7 consoles + 7 handhelds * 1000 games = 14, 000 total games. Now let's look at steam, which has 439 million games. 439 MILLION! We don't even need to look at the THOUSANDS of online websites with their THOUSANDS of flash games. To compare PC gaming titles with consoles is just a folly thing. Here's my source for this information: https://arstechnica.com... I never said my having a PC you instantly have 4K 120 fps capability, I am just showcasing the difference between the systems. You don't need the latest and greatest PC, but if you want that it is an option. Do you want the latest and greatest console experience? Sorry it's going to be the same as every other console. You say people only play games like League and Dota because they are free to play, and more people would be playing the Last of Us, and other titles had they been free to play. Yes, there would have been more people playing those games when they came out - but these games don't have a lasting appeal like online gaming. There would have been more people playing them for a short time, then their popularity would have died out. Furthermore, a huuuge amount of these 'free' games don't just play for free. There's micro transactions in these games that players frequently purchase so money is not a big issue for them. Here's a small poll (small considering overall player base) showcasing average people's spending: http://www.strawpoll.me...