PS3 graphics VS newest PC graphics.

Going to pick up my MGS4 tonight at Midnight. Between that, Battlefield: Bad Company, and Fallout 3... I'm gonna be busy on the PS3 for a while...

 

Geez, this thread is a mess. Where to start, hmm, indie games:



Everyday Shooter, available on the PS3 (and now Steam), created by one immensely talented man, and the best twin stick shooter there ever was.



The Dishwasher, created by a single guy using Microsoft's XNA Game Studio, as part of an "XNA Community Games" incentive that Microsoft is rolling out this fall.



World of Goo, IGF finalist, coming to PC...and WiiWare.

There are several solutions coming down the pike for RTS on consoles, including EndWar and Halo Wars. Universe at War, while not the best RTS ever made, pioneered an excellent control scheme that can help serve as a template for how to make things like this work. The movement has begun, there was a time when FPS was mostly exclusive to PC too, all it took was a quality implementation to open those floodgates. Traditional wargames?



Dai Senryaku VII is actually one of the more badass wargames I've played on ANY system, PC or console. As for MMOs, this angle has really not been explored outside of FFXI, but there's no doubt that it's just a matter of time before someone capitalizes.

There's plenty of upside to PC gaming still, but besides the mouse/keyboard trope (which is really getting played out, especially when you can use an M/K for UT3 on PS3, one would think the trend is in that direction) the PC is a contiguous part of the gaming community now. There was an article with someone from NVIDIA talking about how the common framework and multiplatform trend is actually what's going to keep PC gaming alive, because the costs are low enough to port back to the PC that there's no reason not to. In a way, it RAISES the lowest common denominator, because instead of bothering with developing for integrated gfx, you can start with the 360 as your lowest common denominator. The PC will never be irrelevant and remains the open playground where people can make games completely under their own rules (but you already see initiatives bringing plenty of independent influence into consoles, I did spend about an hour playing Defend Your Castle on Wii the other day), but make no mistake, spending a huge amount of money making your PC "gaming ready" because there's nothing like it is truly foolish. "High end gaming" has gone and is going multiplatform, and that comes with a much more welcoming cost structure. The gaming PC is becoming, by and large, a "premium console." The cost situation is good for thrifty shoppers because right now because you can get an 8800GT for $150, but the cycle isn't perpetually in this state, which is exactly the problem. Oh, and that only applies to the tiny niche of people who actually know what they're doing like us. For most people, you've got no chance.

 

RTS games won´t work on a console until they release and use mouse and keyboard for it. It is as simple as that. And that hexbased wargame there is amongst the most ridiculous I have seen. Come back when they release a real hexbased wargame based on the Seven Years War, or Great Northern War in the 18th century. Punic Wars in the ancient era.

No cute japanese wargame that looks so simple even my 4 year old kid can understand and play it.

 

"smarmy" can also refer to an attitude of "greasy smugness" or an obnoxious smug attitude. I think it's amusing when someone needs to google words to pick apart my posts because they don't understand the meaning... and then you can't even do that right! I didn't think using the word "smarmiest" would qualify for an attempt at proving my intelligence, but I guess in your world it might. If I needed to prove my intelligence, which is not proven by seeing how many big words one can produce, I wouldn't waste my time coming here to do it.

 

A simple interface that makes the game playable and intuitive != lack of depth. That game is INCREDIBLY deep. I've had my fair share of experience up and down the SSI gamescape and that is as good of an experience as any of the General games for my money. To decry it from a screenshot is absurd. This is the kind of snobbery that I was talking about. "IF IT DOESN'T REQUIRE SEVENTY-FOUR HOTKEYS TO WORK THEN **** OFF." Intuitive control schemes and interfaces are important to ANY game, on ANY platform.

And on controller-based RTS schemes, it's not "as simple as that." As I ALREADY said, Universe at War for 360 already offers a comfortable and playable control scheme, as noted in the majority of its reviews, and multiple RTS games are being developed exclusively with a console in mind with control schemes that work (Halo Wars is a 360 exclusive, and EndWar is built around voice recognition). We have come a long way since Starcraft 64. Hell, the Wii Remote made for the most comfortable FPS controls ever IMO, there's no reason why that couldn't work for a solid RTS either, as it's the closest to a mouse pointing device as a console has ever had.

Bring the meat next time instead of just being a dick. Refuting points with "no it isn't" is worthless unless you have actual data to back up your arguments. The fact remains that the complex wargame has largely been the province of the PC, however, you see that shifting already, and while the PC will still be invaluable for its legacy and for its open platform, it doesn't have a stranglehold on interface, support, or any of that. The reason few people are making hexbased war sims on consoles right now is because few people are making hexbased war sims AT ALL right now.

 

The Wii is the most promising console for strategy, and really all game types. Too bad most hardcore games will probably avoid it since it has such poor graphics.

 

I expect that that will only continue until the marketshare lead becomes too compelling to ignore.

 

720p = 1280*720 = 921k pixels
1080i = 1920*540 = 1036k pixels

Not a huge jump in pixels, Its the jump to 1080p that kills performance because thats over 2073k pixels...

Anyway why would anyone run 1080i?! It looks considerably worse than 720p in most cases, Interlacing should have died since the invention of LCD

 

1080i is actually 960x1080. its the same number of pixels, but it alternates the other way. each frame is full vertical res and it alternates horizontally, so each frame is only half res horizontally...

some things look better in 1080i compared to 720p, but not really...

720p / 1080p is really a much better choice.

 

Actually, didn't use Google... just happened to know the basic definition. And why so hostile in this thread? It's a forum. Who cares. Be happy.

And please, don't question my intelligence because I didn't know all 16 correct and formal definitions for a single, slightly unused word. I admit I was wrong.

 

Dick? I just say http://www.matrixgames.com/ or www.hpssims.com. Compare those games to that ridiculous looking hexbased japanese manga style so called wargame. You must be kidding me, how old are you? I have played real PC wargames for many many years. They don´t need 100´s of hotkeys nor do they have. Looks apparently you haven´t played any of the HPS games, nor Horse & Musket 2 games, have you?

An interface tells much about a game and especially a wargame. That game you show looks like a replica of HistoryLine or Battle Isle games.

 

Magnus, you're sitting here accusing him of not playing your so called "Hexbased War Games", and yet you are judging the game by a screenshot. I'm pretty sure if anyone is in the wrong on this conversation, it's you.

I hate to get in this immature flame wars, but when someone's wrong, they're wrong. Now, the story would be different if you had actually played the game. Then maybe the justification of your "ridiculous looking hexbased japanese manga style so called wargame" comment would be solid.

 

Maybe I should add my 2 cents. First of all it seems to me like never before that were in the "prime age" of multiplatform games this generation of gaming consoles not only are many games multiplatform but many of the top most anticipated games are (Oblivion,Bioshock,Assassins Creed,The Sims series,Mass Effect,Soon Fallout 3 & Far Cry 2,Lost Planet,UT3,Age of Conan!,and many more...) This is a good thing and also a bad thing. The good thing is that rather you have an ps3,360,or PC,you really don't miss out on many of the great epic games. The bad thing is that many game series that use to be pc exclusive are now multiplatform. But before I talk about the pc,lets talk about the console war. Plain and simple right now th 360 is doing great as far as sales goes pounding the PS3.And one of the main reasons is th abundance of multiplatform games,why spend more money on a console (ps3) when you could get another console thats cheaper and can play just about the same exact games? The same goes for the pc, why would you spend thousands of dollars on a gaming rig when you could play many of those same games on a console that costs less than $400. It seems today that MAINLY the only benefit to having a gaming rig is being able to play many of the multiplatform games with higher visuals than the consoles can produce and what seems to be the now dwindling pc exclusive titles. But the matter of the fact is that with the power of current consoles you have to have a pretty good pc (which= more money than consoles) to play a game with higher visuals and then the difference is usually only noticeable but not by much. And then the use of broadband on consoles has allowed now even MMORPG's on consoles (Age of Conan ,Final Fantasy XI). Im not bashing any pc gamers I'm just saying that I think we should take notice that things maybe are changing for PC gaming...

 

yeah im not sure, this laptop may be my last foray into pc gaming. i hate getting the 6 month wait shaft for GTAIV. i mean, i'll deal with it, but i obviously don't like it. im not going to buy an xbox just because of it, but seriously its annoying.

and honestly, its just GTAIV that upsets me.

 

I agree with both masterchef341 and RPGman. It's hard to justify the cost of a gaming pc when you think about the cost vs the benefit. I love my sager, but if I wasn't making decent money right now I'd probably be kicking myself in the ass for buying it. Since I'm a traveler for work and my contract end is coming up soon I may still end up kicking myself in the ass if I have to go without work for weeks before finding my next job. At least I have the comfort in knowing that I use my pc for a lot more than gaming.

 

i mean, for now, it was a fine investment. i wanted to try out osx, i had to have a high-spec laptop for school anyway, and i could have bought a ps3 or just invested a little bit more into the laptop. i chose the latter, and now my gaming machine is portable and has about as much graphics power as a console.

plus- console games cost $60 each. if i bought like 5 games and an extra controller that would easily be an added $400 after tax...

its just not that cheap either way lol.

happy that CoD4 and GRID are available on the PC right away. I love those types of games (high production value). Devil May Cry 4 is great news too! I'm just stuck with a bitter taste in my mouth because of GTAIV.

If they were legitimately worried about piracy or just the fact that pc games are sold cheaper sucking their budget, I just wish that Take Two had decided to release GTAIV on steam on the PC for $60. They could even release a retail copy that is still a steam copy (like valve games).

 

i will say it again. i can't play any decent rts games on a console. pc wins hands down.

 

yes notebook retard, if you just want to play rts all day then pc wins hands down.

 

Nah; each frame is 1920x1080, each FIELD is half the resolution.

The first part is correct, that you say the second part actually proves that you don't understand the difference between the two.

1080P is always the better choice because it contains the best of both worlds, but 720P depends on the content type.

As if the LCD were a paragon of quality?
Seriously, why would anyone want 720P anymore?

And to be clear BOTH the PS3 and X360 CAN render at 1080P, they simply chose not to most of the time due to performance and resource limitations for the effects used. Both will upscale lower resolution images to varying degrees of success, and there is no set resolution on the X360 which has flexible hardware upscaler, there's just more common resolutions, Halo3 was a rather popular case exposing this.

The cost issue has lost all meaning with theGF8800GT & HD3870 selling for under $125, and 2GB of DDR2 1066 ram at $25 and a more than capable Core2 DUO or AM2 w/ MoBo for $125, (and a Q6600 with Mobo selling for under $200, if anyone thought a quad was worth it for gaming), add PSU if needed and then basically for $300-350 that's an upgrade that easily turns an average or aging PC into a gaming PC.

The cost argument was fine when we were talking about $400-600 graphics cards and weak P4s and early X2s for over $200, but nowadays the value argument is losing it's weight when you're paying more for console hardware that's already over a generation behind.

Buy whichever suits your needs.

Just like this whole thread, anyone who isn't open to the benefits of either the console or the PC is ignorant. If you can't get a console to do what you want get a PC, if you can't get a PC to do what you want get a console; if you can't get either to do the job, then I suggest board games.

 

A game tells a lot and especially wargames with simplistic interface by just the look of it, I don´t know what you consider deep. But that game surely plays like the simplistic Battle Isle games, the old but good games on the PC. If you have ever played it, if you haven´t download it, it is abandonware.

I am myself involved in wargame projects and has done several wargames graphically.

 

But even if it costs the same to upgrade, for those who don't have an high pc or have an aging pc it's cheaper to by a console , and also you will eventually have to buy a new rig in the future to keep up to date with the latest games. But at the same time I do understand the uniqueness of a gaming rig, customized neon lights the case an a monster cpu and video card. If you have the money then go on ahead to each is on but you'll be saving more money with a console. I think the dilemma that many had and still have when The new consoles and Directx10/Vista came out. Was to spend $1,000+ on gaming laptop/pc or get a console for $400. An example of that is Oblivion, when Oblivion came out many people had Pentium 4/Athlon 64 machines and to play the game in its full glory many needed a better GPU. But at the same time, Oblivion came out for the 360 which had graphics that could almost compete with many high end gaming rigs. And then upgrading your GPU was almost a waste as dual core cpu's were coming out which meaned that eventually you would have to upgrade your motherboard,cpu,and GPU due to directx 10 or all together get a new rig.

 

Nah, I disagree, for the price difference in titles over that same time, you could probably save $100-200 which would finance a similar upgrade, and even without one, look how long the Radeon 9700/9800 series remained playable, and the Geforce4 before it, and even to this day the Geforce 6800GT would play anything out there at the same resolution as an Xbox/PS2.

For this generation it would likely remain the same for the combo I list above. Over time both will fall behind the high end gaming PC, but both will remain playable.

I don't do neon, but I'd like to see how with a similar starting point you think you're going to save money with the console, if you pay more for games, peripherals, and have to pay more for online services. You're also locked into a certain console too, should the PS3/Wii/X360 fall out of favour and become this generations Dreamcast then you need to switch to remain relevant to the genre, at worst for PC, you'd have to swap a cheap part or OS. If you picked and X360 at launch, yes it'd stay a value over time for that initial investment, but we're talking about this moment in time going forward.

Sure if you want to role back time to a point when the Xbox360 was new and had these advantages over the hardware of the day, fine, but it's over 2 years later it not the same as the X360 will not play oblivion in it's 'full glory'.
And BTW, the consumer dual core CPUs were out the year before that, by the time Oblivion came out many people already had an X2 or sadly a PentiumD, I had been riding a dual MP for 3 years before that even. The thing about CPUs, people who potentially game, usually get capable ones for their other jobs. Also DX10 is far from necessary even now, it's just an added bonus of that HD3K or GF8 card.

Like I said both have their roles and benefits, but the value argument is pretty dead nowadays, and compare the launch situation with the current one is not what we're talking about. It's pretty much a given that a few months after launch when the titles are available, a console is a hard thing to match value wise, but 2 years later, it's not that tough anymore, and a year or two from now it'll be easier, and that's when they'll refresh the consoles again and the cycle will start all over again.

 

I think both the PC and the Console have their ups and downs, but simply for GT5, I like the PS3 more.. hahah!!

and an OT question, is the GT5 prologue also displayed at 720p and then only converted to 1080p.??

 

the consoles don't get better, but they DO get cheaper.

you can get an xbox 360 or ps3 for the price of just a GPU.

there is no doubt in my mind that PCs are more expensive, but also can be either more portable or more powerful. you also get the added benefit of being able to perform non-gaming computing tasks.

 

Or the other way around. Get a PC for work/email/school and shell out an extra $200 to make it a video game console as well! Its easier to justify it to yourself that way .

 

well spoken. a nice pc for school can be converted into a gaming machine for the cost of a gpu, usually the same or less than the cost of a console.

 

And to add to masterchef and Dire comments:
We get full compatibility with 10+ years old games.

I'm not anti-consoles, but definitely this is another advantage of PC's.

 

Yeah some people actually need an oced quad core and 4 gigs of ram for productivity. The MARGINAL cost of a gaming PC is actually less than the cost of a console.

 

Not much compared to other electronics. They castrated the PS3, including removing the compatibility hardware, to bring it down but it's still more than an X360 which is only slightly lower than before.

Show me the store/site that sells a PS3/X360 for as low as those 2 GPUs I listed. Heck both combined are cheaper than either individual console.

Because that's you major argument, without it what do you have?
Seriously that was fine for the old GPUs at the X360's launch, but now they're pretty even value.

 

That's the "correct" answer.

 

The correct answer is that newest PC rape PS3's face.

 

You're right about the first part. The xbox 360 and ps3 do drop their prices, but not as much as anyone would like.

A GPU obviously doesn't cost the exact dollar amount as a console. You can get a good GPU for less than the cost of a console, but they aren't exactly an order of magnitude off. plus, a GPU != a gaming pc. you need a whole computer around it. and that PC with its GPU costs more than a console. Even an average PC with no gpu costs more than a console.

Without the money argument, I guess I don't have much, but the money argument is strong imo. Money talks, as they say. But I'm not really arguing for or against consoles or PC's. I was just calling price tag as I saw it. Consoles are definitely less dollars than a modern gaming PC. Not talking about value at all. Just dollars out of pocket.

 

I'm surprised this thread is still on...

 

I got a PS3. And a Dell laptop. Best of both worlds.

 

the ps3 plays 1080p doesnt it?

the 360 only does 720 like, or 1080i, but but 1080i isnt true 1080.

 

Incorrect. The consoles can output at 1080i/p, but the screen buffer the game renders to is only 720p, and the console upscales the image to the output resolution. And the 360 can output at 1080p with the right hardware/software updates.

 

Right now the best looking game is Uncharted : Drake's Fortune. Whatever you PC-fans say .. currently no game is match for this by graphics. Gameplay is also quite good.
Within racing games, evern GRID doesn't look as good as Burnout Paradise.

PC gpu's are better, but game developement not.

 

There are games on both systems that output in true 1080p, but very very few. Top Spin on the 360 was 1080p I think. A lot of games on both systems output at less than 720p actually; but upscale well to 1080p.

GTA for instance was like 600p, so to speak, on PS3 and 720p on xbox. COD4 on 360 was even less than 600, but I'm not sure what it was on PS3. The same I assume but I don't know.

The bottom line is they both upscale to 1080p, but there are basically no games that display in native 1080p.

 

Excuse me? Righ now PS3 has these games with NATIVE 1080p

A (1)
All Pro Football 2K7

B (1)
[ps] Blast Factor

C (2)
[ps] Calling All Cars
College Hoops 2K7

D (1)
The Darkness

F (3)
Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
[ps] flOw
Full Auto 2 Battlines

G (0)

H (2)
Harry Potter
[ps] High Stakes on the Vegas Strip: Poker Edition

I (0)

J (0)

K (0)

L (1)
[ps] LocoRoco Cocoreccho!

M (2)
Marvel Ultimate Alliance
[ps] Mesmerize™: Distort (Playstation Eye)
MLB The Show

N (3)
NBA ‘07
NBA 2K7
Ninja Gaiden

O (0)

P (4)
Pirates of the Carribean
[ps] PixelJunk™ Monsters
[ps] PixelJunk™ Racers
[ps] Piyotama

R (0)

S (2)
Street Home Court
[ps] Super Stardust HD

T (2)
Transformers The Movie
[ps] Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection

U (0)

V (1)
Virtua Tennis 3

 

Yeah, Grog got it. The requirements from MS for the 360 state that games must render to at least a 1280X720 buffer, so 98% of games do the minimum. There are very few that are higher and some that get a waiver and are lower, but the overwhelming majority are 1280X720.

 

And there are how many games for the PS3 out? What is that, 5%? 10%? Please, that is not a significant proportion by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Ok...struck a nerver, did I? I didn't say it had none. If you take a look there are about 20 games there out of a whole lot. That's like less than 3%. Not to mention most of those games suck faces or are arcade games. I wasn't fighting either side here. I was just pointing out that both 360 and PS3 have games that output in 1080p, but there are very few.

The poster seemed to think that all PS3 games did native 1080p and no 360 games did. Just setting him straight, not trying to start something like you seem to be.

 

Most of those games aren't big titles, except for the movie tie-ins.

 

Yeah and not very demanding too graphically. Only reason why such weak games graphically can be played at native 1080p.

Best looking game is not on the console. Crysis is the best looking game out there, how hard can it be to understand that a console can´t compete with a high end PC graphically?

 

Um, if you read the thread, I don't think anyone argues that, so it's not "hard to understand". We all understand that... as stated.

 

No I meant specifically to a person stating that Uncharted is the best looking game, I assumed he meant better looking that Crysis too, ah well can someone kill this thread now. Else we can start a "gamespot system wars" thread here too.

 

I read somewhere they were going to port Crysis to the PS3, cant recall...dont quote me on it.

 

If so, they will have to neuter it.

 

hell yea they will....could take superior advantage of the CELL, with all the physics and such, medium settings at most me thinks

 

All of them.

You ignorant fanboy, do your homework before you shout.