Difference between console and pc gaming

How much of a difference is the picture quality e.g. COD4 maxed out all the way on pc compared to say the 360 with an hdtv 1080i

 

Enough to be noticeable, not enough to be distracting.

 

Well, for starters, if your PC has a really good GPU, you could probably push above 1920X1080 (1080p) resolution. HDTV is actually fairly far behind cutting edge in terms of display resolutions available commercialy, despite what marketing tells you. To other graphical aspects, a modern high end PC outclasses the GPU in the 360 in pretty much every way. Another thing to take in to concideration is that most 360 games actually render to the frame buffer at 1280X720 (720p) and are then upscaled to 1080i/p, so the image isn't even as hig fidelity as a native 1920X1080 (or more common 1680X1050) on a PC.

Basically, don't play games on consoles if you want cutting edge graphics. Such things cost money. Bleeding edge GPU configurations on PC cost many times what a console does, just for the GPUs, so that tells you something right off the bat.

 

Yes, you're always going to get the superior graphics with a PC. The main difference between a console and a PC is the 'comfort factor'. You'll get easier control schemes, dumbed down gameplay, and the ability to stretch out on a couch while playing on a console. PC pwns everything else.

 

Well, that is unless you buy say a 30" monitor and a USB gamepad...like the 360 controller...and plug that in to your PC...and play the same games that come out for the 360 after they port them to PC, only with better graphics and more moddability...

A console IS a computer, just a specialized, cheaper, lower powered, more proprietary one than any PC you can buy. Unless you really like Xbox marketplace, you can do pretty much everything a console can do on a PC, plus do everything that a PC can do that a console can't.

Oh, and you won't always get better graphics on a PC. For about 4-8 months after a console is released (the Wii being a notable exception), a new console will probably be able to beat PC graphics. However, consoles are pretty much fixed points once they hit store shelves, where as PCs are always evolving.

 

say i have an option to go for a maxed out 8800m GTX notebook and play 1600x??? resolutions +X360 and ps3 compared to a desktop sli 9800GX2 and play on 2500x1600 XD i suppose playing at that resolution with everything maxed out= real life?

 

I believe CoD 4 on 360 is actually only something like 600X1024 and then scaled to match your display. Just as DVDs are only 480p and then upscaled on an HDTV/DVD upconverter, so is CoD 4 on the 360---it is not rendered @ 1920X1080 on a 1080p TV, it's rendered @ 600p then just scaled to fit.

To say nothing of the frame rate.....

 

aww that totally sucks. do you know where to get the screenshots of the 2500x1600 maxed out? ive been looking for it but cant find it

 

Actually Tony, I know from working on 360 titles that it is a requirement from Microsoft that all games for 360 render to a minimum 1280X720 back buffer. If the back buffer is any smaller, Microsoft will not allow the title to be released to the platform.

Also, DVDs aren't strictly speaking 480p. For starters, they can be encoded as interlaced rather than progressive. Secondly, the DVD standard forces a 720X480 res, which is neither a 16:9 or 4:3 resolution. At 480 lines, widescreen is ~854X480 and 4:3 aspect is 640/480. DVD video is actually encoded with rectangular pixels. At 4:3 aspect, the pixels are taller than they are wide, and at 16:9, they are wider than they are tall.

 

Okey...here's the thing. If you have a good enough PC, then the same game IS going to look better on PC than on ANY console, expecially with the new DX10 games....
There are many console/pc comparisons, just check them out, and if you don't think that there are much of a difference, then by all means go with the console. However, if you like to game on the go like I do, then console may not be the best choice...just personal taste I guess...

Bioshock x360 vs. PC

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6178185/index.html

 

I actually read that too... they put it low so that they could get passable performance on consoles.

 

Not all 360 games are rendered @ 720p ----Halo 3 certainly isn't 720p. Bungie (the developer) has even confirmed this after Beyond3d.com "outed" them. CoD 4 isn't 720p either, or so I read--also at beyond3d.com---they have a listing of non-720p native 360 titles.

Or just google: non 720p 360 titles.

Strange that a developer doesn't know this.......

The DVD example was an analogy for the 360's up conversion as this is a concept foreign to mainstream computer 3D cards.....Thanks anyway

 

Well, if it renders to a back buffer lower than 1280X720, they got a waiver from MS. I know for a fact that the requirements for all Xbox titles explicitly say that the game has to render to a minimum 1280X720 frame buffer. I know that because I read the req, multiple times. I know MS does give waivers sometimes, but I didn't think that that was one of the reqs they would give a waiver on.

Oh, and it isn't foriegn to PCs. Lots of games and other apps scale between the back buffer and the screen. Hell, any time you watch a DVD on a PC, it is being scaled. Thanks anyway.

 

You can defiantly tell the difference though; COD4 on my roommates 360 and 720p TV looks worse than my computer at 720p on the same TV. They tried to use AA to mask the lower resolution, but you can still tell.

 

sigh.....

I never said "foriegn to PCs".

I said "a concept foreign to mainstream computer 3D cards"

Meaning the typical 3D PC game when the resolution is set to say, 1900X1200, the game is rendered and displayed at that resolution, unlike the 360.

Thanks for using my own example of DVDs though---that was a nice touch. --Flash based games would have been more original.

 

Flash based games... or even images larger than the window in IE (7 at least, I forget if 6 did it). And there are some PC games that do scaling after render, though it does tend to be rare (because it ends up looking pretty lame, usually). I don't remember the name if it, but the one that comes to mind most recently is a sub sim that rendered everything in I think 800X600 then upscaled. But I would generally agree that most PC games at least have a number of higher resolutions to get the best fit for a specific display res.

 

Xbox360 = No Judder, No driver issues, No update confusion, No Anti-virus issues, No Installation, No Defragging, No time spent adjusting settings, No constant expensive upgrading, No time spent trawling forums for ideas on how to make a game playable.

Just one example: Gears of war.

I'm not baised, as I have a 360, a decent laptop, and an even more descent desktop, but if I want to buy the latest multi-platform game, it's 360 for me every time. I only buy for the PC for when I'm away from home.

 

And no mods too apparently:
http://kotaku.com/378932/microsoft-others-inviting-trouble-by-supporting-mods

MS never gave a rats ass about security on other platforms before so I find it funny that they have the gall to call other companies out. Did MS worry about OSX or Linux users' security? Nope it's to make sure other platforms don't have the advantage of having mods when theirs doesn't.
This is a quote from an non-MS newsite:

 

Personally, I have no interest in "Mods" whatsoever.

 

umm so you're not interested in say, new epic-sanctioned maps for GoW? really?
But even if you didn't like free content alot of games and game developers/designers/mappers started out as mods and it would be a shame to see it stifled on any platform.

 

Think you're exaggerating there, unless you're a 12 year old schoolboy who regularly screws up his PC with too much porn and then tries to shift the blame onto Windows. Any half knowledgeable person will have no real issue with virus, de-fragging is not essential, and I've only maybe twice in my entire life had to look for help regarding games on a forum. You're making it sound like every PC game is a laborious chore to play....basically, I install and play for 99% of my games, as do most people, without any significant issue. I've also never had any issue with updating a game.

I don't see how Gears of War is an example, I installed that and played it on my desktop, laptop and my sisters laptop with zero issues...

Call of Duty 4 looks rubbish on a 360 w/HDTV compared to a mid-range performance computer, it looked miles better on my 150 euro 3870, and it looks incomparably better on my 8800GTS. I played it at a friends house, and although it was fun, it looked shoddy....low res textures and scaled up was hideously apparent. It runs almost as good on my laptops video card....the days where the argument 'you need a 1k computer to play games like the 360' are long gone...I built a machine a few months ago for 400 that easily ran games better then the 360.

 

Nope, Clean machine. Never had a problem with a virus on any of my machines, only with over-intrusive anti-virus software. Just for the record, I spend a significant part of my working life helping others (including so-called I.T. Proffesionals and software engineers) with PC/Networking issues.

Search for Gears of war (Windows) problems on google, and you'll find plenty !

I didn't comment on graphics, but since you did, I'd love to see your 400 (presumably Euro) PC Hooked up to a 42 Inch Plasma running COD4 next to a 360, especially if it runs games "Easily" better. I'd really be looking forward to the heavy combat sections where there is smoke everywhere, and drooling over how much smoother the gameplay is

I think that quite often, because people have ploughed so much money into their PC (myself included), they're over defensive against XBOX360.

 

I've seen lots of dual core (usually AMD X2 5000 or better) PCs for sale for <400 (USD)---usually equipped with 2GB RAM, crappy integrated graphics, etc. Drop in an 8800GT for say, 180usd, delete the bloatware, and (with current exchange rates) that's a <400 euro PC that kills a 360 at 3D gaming.

FWIW--one of my PCs is nearly that exact setup, only with a CPU (X2 4400+) that's even worse. It's FAR better than my 360 at Bioshock, CoD 4, etc (rented them on 360 before buying on PC)

 

The PC was a Core 2 overclocked to 2.8Ghz, 2Gb ram, and a 512mb HD3870 OC. Ran at 60-90fps at 1680x1050, AA feasible on >32 player maps. Do you honestly think that that's inferior to the 360?

I used to own a 360, I'm not biased in favour of either. But your comments struck me as wildly exaggerated.

I've played COD4 at my friends and experienced chokage with heavy smoke on his 360, are you implying the 360 is magically immune to any slowdown whatsoever?

 

I don't think you will be able to see much of a difference without actually taking screen shots and looking at them side by side.

I think the main advantage to PC gaming is not the graphics but rather just the options. It leaves alot more room for the game to be expanded with custom sounds/skins, player made maps/expansions, trainers for single player, ect. Also my computer is connected to the internet by default and lets me play a game and tab over to look at a guide or something.

Then also its very nice to be able to use something like fraps to make game play videos. When playing on a console getting screen shots for signatures or avatars, or game play videos is a much more tedious and sometimes expensive procedure.

I will always prefer PC to console for those reasons and a few more. However a pro for consoles is the game will just RUN, no hassles, no driver issues, no hardware requirements to meet, ect.

Even if a PC IS 5x more powerful than a xbox360 it doesn't mean it will run 5x better, infact very commonly it will run worse unless you have insanely high end hardware. Thats because games (especially console ports) do not scale 1:1 with performance per hardware power due to programing(or lack of rather).

Games for a console are made to run on that very specific hardware and usually very highly optimized so they run great for the given power of the hardware.

For PC users tho since the range of hardware is so vast it cant be optimized nearly as well, and often times I think they just don't give a damn because they know we have things like 8800gtx's and quad core cpus available to us, and just make us pick up the programing slack by having to have top end hardware, nobody can really stop them. The hardware companies are going to love it because it gives you a reason to upgrade your equipment constantly and the game company saves time/money not having to optimize it as well.

You can tell the difference easily from a game that was programed well for pc and one that was not. 2 games with identical visual effects and graphic appeal one will run at 45+fps with mid range hardware (Unreal Tournament has always been programed well with great visuals) and the other will crush the same hardware and have nothing more to show for it (Battlefield 2/2142 used to hurt hardware until about the 7000 series, and Crysis is the new computer killer)

Those are the sad facts of PC gaming and I dont see it changing pretty much ever.

 

I find it...interesting how so many console kiddies hate mods. They all seem to think that mods are all wallhack packs or something like that. Of course, they couldn't be more wrong. Check out almost any mod site for almost any game with a good mod community, and you will see 99.9% of mods fit in to 1 of 2 catagories; partial or total conversions (like turning SoaSE in to a Star Trek game) and mods that actually increase the difficulty of the game.