Console quality of PC games...

The problem is consoles get outdated rather quickly. Imagine the best gaming PC in 2005 compared to the best gaming PC to day, and their is a huge difference. When the console first comes out, it is comparable to PC gaming in some ways, but 4 years later, a pretty average PC can smoke the console.

And the whole price comparison is separate issue. You use a consle for gaming, maybe movies also, but that isnt even 1% compared to all the things you can use the PC for, and you can always buy an xbox controller for the PC and hook it up to your TV if you like.

 

i don't necessarily see consoles "outdated" hardware as a "problem." overall i'm going to assume there are heck of a lot more people enjoying high quality gaming on the PS3 and the Xbox360 than those playing on a PC. how many people out there upgrade their gaming rig every year or two? most people will stick with their "outdated" PC hardware for at least 3-4 years if not more (if you play games like WoW). i don't think anyone would consider upgrading their PC to latest and greatest hardly worth their money for those few must have games like crysis and fallout that come out few times a year and push the current gen cards to its limit. seriously though, how many games are out there on PC that look marginally better than PS3 and Xbox360 that are worth paying a hefty premium over the consoles? dead space? fallout 3? both of these look pretty good on xbox360 using HDTV.

 

I think, for the most part, you're right BHD. There's another problem here that has thrown a wrench in the comparison.

The xbox and xbox360 are largely similar to PC when you talk about development; to a lesser degree, hardware. However, the PS3, PS2, Gamecube, Wii and other systems are extremely different.

For instance, to emulate the PS2, a computer needs a fair amount of ram and video ram. In fact, it takes probably 16-20 times the resources to convert the console's methods of rendering to use the PC's resources.

My point is that the comparison is not apples to apples. It's the same thing that happens when you compare the shader processors of nvidia to ATI gpus.

ATI says they have 800, Nvidia says they have 240. The problem is that the 240 often times outperforms the 800. Why? It's because you haven't distilled the comparison down to just one difference.


I'll leave you with this

JUST PLAY GAMES BECAUSE THEY'RE FUN YOU MORONS!

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is sheer number of releases being higher on say the 360. Even though alot of these releases are steaming piles unless you stick to high quality titles which are released much more sparingly. There is always the mmo argument as well, the mmo experience may never lend itself to the current generation consoles. The last "mmo" which wasn't really an MMO that I enjoyed on a console was phantasy star online II on Dreamcast. Am I the only one who still has my dc and all my games?

 

Strange after the updates that came from Steam (I bought Saints Row 2 quite a while after release) 1 was getting 20 to 25 FPS on the highest settings with an 8700m and 1.80 dual core. Perhaps your problem was between the keyboard and the chair rather than the computer itself, or did you give up before any patches were released?

The draw distance on the PS3 is awful by the way. Characters would spawn right in front of your face, and driving fast cars made the game unplayable on PS3, as objects would appear nearly on top of the player.

 

I bought it from Direct2Drive a few days ago since it was $5. Since it's a Steam run game, there's no manual patching required.

If you're going to call a PEBKAC, I'm the last person you should call it on. What the hell could I possibly be doing that's affecting the game? Prodding my GPU with a pencil while playing to make it render slower?

 

Thats a old game though, games like InFamous or killzone 2 are great games to play.They have amazing story lines and good replay values.My point is that consoles are consoles and pcs are pcs so stop comparing and just start play.I own a ps3,ds,psp and pc(obviously) and i dont compare the graphics between them.Most of you are to busy trying to max out all the settings and get 60fps by the time you do that you haven't even started the game yet.Then everyone will be telling you the story and spoil it all for you.

 

Slightly true. However, there are ways in which you can perform an apples to apples comparison. You can't compare NV / ATI GPUs based on shader unit counts, but GLOPS and BW and pixel throughput are pretty solid numbers. You can do the same for console (and btw, never EVER count emulation, as emulation introduces an order-of-magnitude performance difference).

Compared to top-end GPUs today, RSX and Xenos are totally smoked, except maybe for Xenos's free MSAA / Blending. CPU wise, I think recent quad cores are approaching the pure number crunching potential of Xenon / Cell, but remember that these console CPUs are completely SCREWED once you get into code with lots of branching (like, say, some AI code). I know of no way to objectively compare OOE CPUs to IOE CPUs.

 

GLOPS?

GFLOPS are still not a good way to compare video cards. the GTX285 does less than the 4870 whether you count single issue or dual issue flops. It's considerably faster though.

Also, I said emulate. I didn't say run the PCSX2 emulator for a PS2. I mean "do the same things as" or "copy" the end result of what the PS2 does. Take for instance FFXI or RE5. I run a 512mb video card a generation older than the xbox and it doesn't even have some of the features available on the xbox's GPU.

Also,

JUST PLAY THE GAMES BECAUSE THEY'RE FUN YOU MORONS!

 

I'll put it this way: graphics are always going to be far better on a high-end PC than on a console, and that's just the way that it is.

However, I bought my Dell 3 years ago for $2000. I bought my PS3 2.5 years ago for $400. While they both play BioShock and Call of Duty 4 about as well, I give the tip of the hat to the Dell for resolution and shadows, but my Dell can't play newer games like NFS:Shift well at all on even medium settings and resolution, and it will play just fine on my PS3. Not to mention, I have enjoyed playing games like MGS4, Uncharted, GT5 , NCAA Football, Madden, Rock Band, and Killzone 2 that aren't even available on PC. The only PC game I can think of that I've missed out on and regret not being able to play is Crysis.

I really enjoy PC gaming and do find it far superior on many levels, but there's just no replacing a console anymore. About 5 years ago, the PC was the pinnacle of gaming in nearly every respect, justifying the cost of constantly upgrading, but the game library of current consoles is just too large to ignore anymore.

I guess the moral is, if you have a high-end PC and a console, but the game for PC; it's cheaper and will look better. But for everyone else, the console is just a much easier decision.

 

once you start playing pc, you will never want to play console again. this happened to me oh about 5 years ago and i still cant stand playing console even if i had nothing else to do. maybe thats just me tho

 

That just sounds strange. Why do people bother making one inferior over the other?

Buy both! You're missing out on exclusives (please don't reply with a justification on every exclusive for the PS3 and how they suck).

 

I do not think that consoles suck. there are some games that are for pc and some for console. and fps are not for console.

i like my money... if you buy two of every game, then ur kinda wasting money

 

i think what he meant say was buy both as in buy both a console and a pc. there aren't that many console/pc ports to justify not owning multiple console/gaming systems if you're really into gaming. it doesnt always have to be-all-end-all situation. it's easier to be ignorant and be one dimensional than to explore and appreciate what's out there.

 

crysis is so overrated, the story is so bad and the gameplay is...alrite. there are easily much MUCH MUCH better games. also take into account the games that just play better on pc. tf2 on console = FAIL, tf2 in PC = BEST MULTIPLAYER game for 3 years straight. srsly nothing can beat its multiplayer, but since i love xbox, i would say halo 3 is definitely one of the best as well.

^and yea, i love pc gaming, starting a month ago, but xbox is fun as well. pc is aimed for hardcore crowd, consoles are for the *softcore* or casual group who sit on a sofa with friends beside em playing co-op. i can tell you, splitscreen with friends > online by 1000. rockband 2 is a great party game, consoles do that. imagine having a party, and there is one pc and the rest are watching one guy play....i know ive seen that happen (not a party, but just going to my friends house). on the other hand, pc games are better gfx, easier to aim with mouse and have high quality online with >16 players unlike consoles (cept MAG).

i own two, ps3 slim coming this november. you really need to look around and see what is available in the world before saying, OMG you suck...

 

lol well, that still means u will be buying twice as many games.

i had a 360, sold it.

 

also, dont buy a desktop next time =) instead, build one.

 

no...i buy racing games/action game for 360/exclusives for 360/gonna buy ONYL exlcusive for the slim this november/pc is for shooting games and exclusives. now granted i will play MW2 on my 360 since for some reason its much easier for me with a controller but thats about it. you have to be bat**** crazy (geras 2 ref. lol) to buy two/three of the same games for all the consoles+/-PC

 

You know, off topic somewhat, but this is making me think... so when you buy a game, you are buying the rights to use it, not the actual physical object or the code/software as an entity. So it stands to reason that if you buy one copy of a game, for a small media fee (maybe $3-$7 or something), you should be able to get copies of that game for any platform you want. Of course, that only makes sense in a world where the industry isn't designed to wring every last possible cent out of people... but still, it seems reasonable to me.