PS3 vs PC

I don't see it the same way. Again, any PS3 game will run on any PS3, and at full quality (as long as you have a full HD-capable tv). Crysis max'd out requires more hardware than is even available currently to run smoothly, including Tri SLI + the fastest Quad core chip out.

 

That argument doesn't really make sense. Just because any PS3 game can run on any PS3 doesn't automatically mean the PS3 is more capable. Any N64 game can run on any other N64 at top quality but it's no Crysis killer. I'm sure Crysis will run fine on a system that's right for it, like something with dual 8800 if that even exists yet. Although I don't own a PC that can handle it maxed, so I really have no solid proof.

 

Actually you're right... but that was not your original question: Crysis has better graphics. And like you mention, it really needs a monster to run, but that fact does not disqualify Crysis as an answer to your original question.

 

I really don't feel there's much truth to those arguments these days.
With the exception of a select few (almost) PC only genres (I can really only think of assorted strategy genres off the top of my head, and a few proper simulation categories like GTR2, rFactor, LFS etc., as a subset of the racing genre and FSX etc. for fligh sims), there's really not much difference between the release lists on PC, XBox 360 and PS3 (the last one still lacking a bit, but it will obviously pick up in the coming year, the 360 had a head start afterall).

Sure, if you pull out your five or ten year old 100 hour PC RPG mastodants for comparion, most of the (still few) Western console RPGs - and just about any game for that matter - start looking a tad shallow, but so do recent PC games.
And to stick to the RPG genre for another moment - Mass Effect (so far a 360 exclusive, though it would surprise me if we don't see a PC port next year) is a 30-40 hours deep and engaging roleplaying/action experience. And Oblivion let's you clock in a much higher number whether you're playing it on the PC, the PS3 or the 360.

And moving onto other genres - first person shooters, 3rd person action/adventure games, arcade and "sim light" racing games, whether multi-platform releases or exclusives, are just as deep (or shallow) on the consoles as they are on the PC.

So actually, I think I'll go ahead and modify my intial "I really don't feel there's much truth to those arguments these days" to "it's just plain bull****" .
The only differences (in typical "default" setups) between most modern PC games and most modern console (360/PS3) games are keyboard + mouse vs. gamepad, potentially better graphics on the PC if you've got a high end system (or a year or two down the line), and office chair + monitor vs. couch + HDTV.

Oh, and you don't need to be drunk or have friends over to play console games. I rarely drink these days and I haven't had any friends for the last five or six years .

 

First off... singular exceptions like Mass effect do not change the overall marketing strategy... There have been exceptions on both sides for a long time.

The fact of the matter is... I pull out ancient those ancient behemoth PC games from time to time just to experience them again... (Fallout, Fallout2, KotoR, Baldur's Gate, NWN) I have NEVER pulled out a console and tried to play an old game because after beating it once (after a very short stint and while drunk) I won't ever want to play it again. Games designed like that come out on PC and almost never on console.

Ports are ports... they are designed for one side and then float to the other.
There is definitely crossover markets in both PC and console markets, but the vast majority of console users who will buy console games don't want a deep engaging game... they want to have a "win" sign attached to their head constantly and feel jilted if they don't "win" something every 10 seconds...
Console game designers have responded and the vast majority of titles available for console are "beat it once never play again" types...

PC gamers generally WANT engaging storylines and characters and the games that generally come out for PC show it. the market has spoken and specifically in a market where it takes a LOT of work to make some of these titles run.

Part of this shows in the recent success of games like halo... The game in comparison is a very low-end to mediocre PC title and it was hailed as the best thing to ever happen to consoles... it quite frankly is the type of thing I need to be impaired to get any enjoyment or challenge from it at all.

I honestly hope the trend is towards making better console games.
That consoles will move from the low-attention-span games to the 100+ hour types... but honestly, I don't see it happening yet except in rare cases like Mass Effect (Bioware, who would have guessed)

 

How are better graphics relevant if you can't enjoy them because of the immense amount of rendering power necessary which brings even the fastest systems out today to their knees (assuming comparable settings to a 1080P PS3 game). We may as well be discussing still photos or paintings at that point.

 

Enjoying the good old PC classics is all well and good of course (something I personally haven't done on many occasions - I simply can't stomach those 6-10 year old graphics on a large high res monitor, no matter how great the actual game was), and I'm certainly not denying that many of them had a depth and longevity that you don't see all that often anymore with games from the last 3-5 years or so - neither console games nor PC games, with the latter being what I was trying to point out.

With skyrocketing production costs and development times over the last several years, most games - no matter the platform - are relatively or sometimes very short, and arguably also often somewhat "shallow" (exactly what constitutes a shallow - or deep - game is partly a matter of opinion of course, there are plenty of fairly simple games offering excellent entertainment value).

And then you've got the occasional game that stands out among the rest with longer, "deeper" and sometimes even "innovative" gameplay - or just old mechanics perfected.
I'll concede that you might still see a few more of those on the PC than on the consoles (but I'm also not convinced that anywhere near all "PC gamers generally WANT engaging storylines and characters"), but going from that to saying that console games are pretty much universally shallow "party games" for the ADD generation (alright, I might have taken some some minor liberties with your original words there ) is quite a leap.

I'm sure there are many old PC gamers like me (well, old is pushing it a bit - I'm only 31, but I've been playing games since the C64 days, and aside from a few months with a PS2 early this year, the XBox 360 has been my first console), who have found out that console gaming can be an excellent alternative to PC gaming, and certainly not just when you're in the mood for a quick and shallow action fix.
I'll still buy the occasional PC game when something a bit out of the ordinary comes along that isn't available on consoles (I'm playing The Witcher at the moment for instance), but overall I actually feel I've had more pleasant and engaging game experiences in the few months I've had my 360, than I've had in at least the past year on my PC - but obviously I partly owe that to the fact that I've been able to lean back and relax on a couch with a gamepad for sometimes hours in a row without getting tired, something I haven't been able to do often with a PC, particularly not if I've already spent 8-10 hours working in front of one earlier in the day.

 

To a person who lives in Canada:

It is $399 for 40gb one, and $499 for 80gig.

I just recently purchased a ps3 at FutureShop, I paid 399$ plus the sales guy was able to give me 3 year warranty for the price of 2 years, and knocked 50% off the HDMI and Optical Audio cables, so it was a decent deal.

Also, for those of you guys who recently purchased a ps3 or other blue ray players, go to www.bluraysavings.com and they give will give you 5 free blue ray movies after you mail in proof of purchase.

 

1) You asked for a question, and you got an answer, don't complain because there is an answer.
2) Nobody in this thread has denied that the amount of resources for surpass the PS3 has to be on an expensive computer ($1800 on GPU's to run Crysis at max, check this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=197535). And they got above 30fps, so your point is invalid.

 

thanks for that link!

 

I think it all really just depends on what you want. Once upon a time I would argue that console based games were far better then computer. In the days of the playstation one I just can't imagen some of those games working out too well on computer with keyboard and mouse.

I am a gamer in general.. I love console and computer games. I love console because (if not now at least once upon a time) I could easily rack up a huge time in game without even thinking about it while playing and working my way threw what felt like a good book.

I love computers because its hard to beat the online play. Getting together with friends, or even strangers and just letting the bullet shells fly or the spells be hurled.

I don't know why but, I feel as though I can get an entirely different feel from a console and a computer.

Also I guess (I feel) the need to point out that realistically I can't deny the computer has a greater over all power. Realistically I feel there are certain plateaus when it comes to graphics. Once you hit a certain level you have hit a certain level. Realistically playstation 3 and 360 represent yet another "plateau" in graphics. Once you hit that plateau its up to design.

I feel realistically ps3 or computer.. despite the computer having more *power* it is gunna be somewhat wasted.(I feel). while there will always be exceptions as to "whats noticeable" In concern to graphics.. You generally won't notice that big of a difference either way. Granted games like F.E.A.R. and Oblivion might be the exception its my understanding they had to seriously alter the dynamic lighting and such for F.E.A.R. and all.

Disclaimer a lot of this is personal opinion. .

 

What you are saying is crazy. So why don't we say, "excluding drakes unchartered island, what PS3 game can compare to the PC?" That's absurd. besides, even though Ps3 has some pretty games, many of them have frame rate issues or just aren't too much fun after one run through (HS for example), but there's no way you can exclude the answer to your question and then expect a different answer. You wanted proof that the PC is more capable and superior in outputting graphics, and with the right amount of money it is. You didn't say take into account the cost and how valuable it is to you. Then again, most people don't buy computers just to game, and high end systems for video editing etc often come with the added bonus of being able to play games.

 

Think about this: A PS3+1080p HDTV+Cables and Accessories costs more than it would to build a gaming rig capable of running all games (except Crysis) at max details and a high resolution. all you need it a decent system with a high end video card. Even if the base system is $1500 a new video card upgrade 2 years later will probably be the only expensive upgrade enabling you to play the latest games (memory isn't that expensive, and the right processor won't need to to be upgraded for a lot longer than a video card). I built a system 2 summers ago for just over $700 that had midrange parts and a 7900gt. I could easily play all of the games that came out for a long time afterwards at max details. Heck, it can still play most of the current games maxed. I'm willing to bet that if I dropped an 8800gt or the G92 8800gts in with some more memory, and maybe an upgrade to the AM2 processor, I could easily play games on par with the PS3, without breaking $2000 combined with the cost of my original build. the cost of a PS3 with a good HDTV could be $2000+. On another note I guess wouldn't really care if the PS3 beat my PC at Folding@home if my PC did everything else better.

Do a google search and you will find that PS3 controllers can easily be used with a PC via a simple driver download.

 

New article about the upcoming XBox 360 port of Supreme Commander - more specifically it's about the challenge of making the gamepad work well in an RTS.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/841/841837p1.html

 

I'm sorry, but you can use that HDTV of yours for a hell of a lot more than for your PS3 and you might have one already. You can plug your PS3 into a monitor and you can plug your PC into an HDTV, so you should exclude the prices for the monitor and HDTV. Otherwise you are merely bloating the price of a PS3 to suit your argument.

And why the inconsistency over Crysis? You can include it in the arguments for better graphics but exclude it in other arguments such as cost?

As for the argument that Crysis on Medium/high sh!ts on Unchartered from a great height (read it somewhere in this thread) - load of bull. I played the demo on mostly medium with a couple of settings on high at 720p and it looks OK compared with Drake's Fortune played on a mate's HDTV at 720p. There is FAR too much exaggeration going on in this thread.

And KernalPanic - If I remember rightly, KotoR was an xbox game to start with. Which proves my next point.

I seem to spend most of my time defending consoles on forums like this despite not having a bias either way. Console games aren't all shallow, in the same way that after taking away the interface in a lot of PC games it reveals a shallow game. Simple execution doesn't necessarily mean shallow.

 

I purchased the 60gb for $540 because it is just better...

The 80gb is built to be made cheaper...

The 60gb has PS2 hardware, the 80gb has Emulation Software.

So yeah... I absolutely love it! I think if I can get my S510 logitech kb +mouse running on it I will be playing all the time... I got The Orange Box... I will buy the PC version later on when I have my m15x....

I still think that PS3 is more fun... PC is more for serious playing or parties... PS3 you just pop in a game and kick back with friends...

And imo I hate people who use Halo3, Mass Effect etc... all those exclusives for 360 to make it seem like the best console... I was strolling through best buy and just saw the lamest games in there... all near $20 and $30...

Anyways... I only had my PS3 for less than 2 days and think it has WAY more potential and features than Xbox 360... F@H is awesome... PS HOME will kick Xbox live away and TF2 only is awesome... as long as I get my KB + mouse to work on it.

 

There are far more bull going on with Crysis not playable. Hell have you even played the game on a 8800GTX or just read on various sites how it runs? Very High settings yes that´s easy to fix and run in XP with DX9 effects and it runs smooth. This is just bull****, my single 8800GTX runs Crysis with Shaders Very High that what mostly matters and more options Very High along with some settings High and the game runs smooth at 1440x900 and that is in DX10 Vista.

Now with tweaking the game to run in Very High in DX9 it runs smoother than Vista and looks better too.

Didn´t Oblivion work on your setup you said? I can even run Oblivion on my laptop in sig at 1920x1200. Gears of War on the PC maxed out with DX10 looks far more better than the console version.

Colin McRae Dirt looks far more better on the PC and runs a hell lot smoother than the PS3 version.

Oh and does the PS3 version of Oblivion run at maxed settings? Last time I palyed it it didn´t at all. The draw distance and everything wasn´t at max settings at all and the 360 version which I own got some serious frame rate problems here and there, same for Bioshock.

Now I don´t play with medium gaming PC´s. I usually upgrade my GPU card in about 2 years time.

You guys think the PS3 will run future games at 1920x1080? Are you serious? Ever heard of scaling? That´s what they does, they cheat into thinking you play at the real resolution of 1920x1080. Sure some simplier games like a racing game or a tennis game. But more advanced games no way.

I can also play tennis games and racing games on my laptop at 1920x1200 smoothly. Yeah not Dirt though, but I can play Dirt at 1280x720 with equal settings to the PS3 and it runs great. But it´s funny to read all this how you need a real killer desktop to reach the graphical quality of the PS3. Bull**** again, take a look at Gear of War running at 1920x1200 resolution, native not upscaled and that´s on my 2 year old laptop and come talk to me again.

PC´s always win graphically and will always do? Last Gen it was the same that you needed a killer PC to even compare graphically to the PS2 and Xbox I just laughed sitting there with my last desktop and playing game with better graphics and smoother framerates than what my PS2 could output. It is exactly the same this Gen, I sit here once again and play games smoother and looking much sharper and better. If they release Uncharted for the PC then we could compare which version looks the best, I don´t think I even have to answer that.

How much did my desktop cost me, well since I built it myself it costed me less than a good HDTV. Yes there are differences between different HDTV´s too, I wouldn´t buy a cheap one with a bad picture, so my desktop costed me less than a good HDTV Now count that in and add in a PS3 too and you are way up in the air with how much to spend to just play a friggin console at all

 

So why not play a PS3 through your monitor?

I'm wondering who most of the first part of your rant was directed at?

 

Take a guess

Also I don´t need to buy a new monitor everytime I upgrade right. No I use my monitor for several years so I didn´t have to include that into the price at all. I don´t own a HDTV though.

 

Well, if it was me, I wasn't arguing about the performance of Crysis. Someone mentioned that on roughly medium settings, Crysis looks miles better than Unchartered: Drakes Fortune. Which it doesn't and which is why I'm saying that a lot of these points are completely overexaggerated.

I think you missed my point - why factor in the cost of an HDTV into the price of a PS3 if you can just play a PS3 on your monitor. How many times you upgrade your monitor means nothing. Actually, none of this really matters to me, I don't own a PS3/xbox 360 or a high end gaming rig, but I like to see a balanced and fair argument.

 

Ah no it was this techguy. Sure you don´t need a HDTV, but if you want graphics "comparable" to PC you got to have a HDTV. Actually the games looks like crap on a SDTV. I know since I have one and have played my 360 on it.

 

Well, the answer definitely is PC. It is not only for gaming.

 

Who cares about the cost anyway? I don´t want to become a braindead lazy consolite. If one has grew up with PC like I have I will never disband it.

I develop games and use my PC for a hell lot of other things than just gaming. But gaming is my primary interest and thus PC gives me the best possible experience one can demand graphically, gameplay wise. What games do I play then? Mostly RTS games and FPS, here the consoles will never unless they get a keyboard and a mouse be near PC.

But what if they start to use a keyboard and mouse a lot for the consoles? What does that mean? Yeah it´s a PC.

All these consoles do is try to gimmick the PC as much as they can, they are soon PC too you bet, it´s getting closer and closer, not performance wise but with mouse and keyboard on the horizon. They could have released games that used mouse and keyboard a long time ago but that would mean the console would be a PC

My Xbox 360 was fun the first 6 months, now it´s only collecting dust. I have never been awed by any console graphics, why? Since the "HD experience" have been on PC for ages. HD a whoopie 1280x720 resolution, wow amazing.

Allright maybe I went a little too far in my ranting, but it´s justified.

I thought notebookforums was free from console fanboy, guess I was wrong. Console fanboys belong to System Wars on Gamespot Forums.

 

So when a console vs. PC thread is started in a gaming subforum (and the first post in this long thread was a fairly neutral one with a specific question), us "console fanboys" are supposed to just sit idly by, rather than try to point out why we feel console gaming can make for a very nice and engaging alternative to PC gaming?

Sorry, don't really feel like doing that - though since this is indeed a notebook forum as you pointed out, I would probably have refrained from starting any console related threads myself. But since someone else dared do it, I'm certainly not going to just sit here and pretend the thread doesn't exist when I strongly disagree with some of the opinions of other posters on the merits of console gaming.
Particularly those that imply console games on a grand scale are really mostly short, shallow games made for ADD kids, teenagers with the IQ of wet cement, or drunken couch parties with your mates .

 

The problem is that this had absolutely nothing to do with the original question. Which games, and how long the games are did not have anything to do with the original question, and this thread should have ended after the first reply instead of people going off on a rant trying to defend the PS3s library of games, or bashing consoles. But hey, rants are what forums are for, right?

 

thunbs up for PC

 

Nah it´s ok Miths you shouldn´t sit by idly. By the way someone mentioned gaming notebooks is a waste. I would tend to disagree there. Surely they are expensive but just look at gaming notebooks with SLI and most laptop have a minimum of 2 hours of battery time. Also who cares about battery time when you are buying a SLI laptop They have very good performance, not only SLI but regular laptops too.

I´m amazed my 2 year old laptop can still play newer games today really good

 

The answer is irrelevant given the required hardware to run Crysis at those settings. Are we really going to talk about $5000 gaming PCs out-performing $400-$500 consoles? I sure hope not, because we may as well be talking about our favorite time of year at that point.

> 30 fps average does not make an FPS playable in my book. Also note the minimum FPS < 15, that certainly isn't playable, especially not in a competitive online match.

 

I just want to clarify my position here before this goes further.

I recently came into some funds, but didn't quite have what I needed to build the gaming PC I wanted (and then there's Penryn & GF9 in only a couple months so I wouldn't feel right building now anyway), so I went with a 42" 1080P LCD HDTV + PS3 instead. I love the idea that this combination is going to last me years to come, and that I won't have to upgrade either item just to play the latest games.

All that being said, I am not a PS3 fanboy. I do not work for Sony. I do not have a grudge against or even dislike any of the other console manufacturers, and still would like to get an Xbox360 and a Wii some day. I am also a technophile, and a gamer in general. I love fast hardware, end of story. I don't have some ulterior motive here, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.

Bottom-line: I feel that the ~$2k necessary to have a top-notch console gaming setup is a better investment than the equivalent amount of money in a gaming PC, especially at this exact moment in time with new hardware right around the corner.

 

I could be wrong but, I thought the first question was "which has more power" not "which has a better gaming experience" And well I'm sorry but, those are two entirely different concepts.

As to the "gaming experience" I don't care who you are realitically some games on console are just more fun. (No i'm not talking about halo. **** halo..) The console just offers a different experience as a whole. Hell when it comes to hack and slash type games although they *can* be done on the computer they are far better off on console (in my opinion). But, this isn't about gaming experience its about which one produces more raw power which is the computer.

As far as opinions go everyone is entitled to their own. Seeing as I am both a console gamer and a computer gamer I feel the over whelming need to point one or two things out. As gaming becomes more "popular" and "the cool thing to do" which believe me I do attribute a lot of gamings popularity right now to being a fad. I feel the over whelming urge to point out that consoles are the one's that adopt all the "fad players" who are only doing it because its popular at the moment. Am I saying everyone with an xbox 360 is a "fad player" Nope not by a long shot. However, I am gunna go out on a limb and say it suffers the most from "fad Players" why? it was the first out, it appealed to people who wanted to just hop in and play games and be "cool" and well sadly.. it has games directed towards the masses.

There is no way around it. Most people get the 360 (I'm picking on the 360.. sorry 360 fans.) get it because it runs on magic and thats all they need to know they can sit around on the couch and look "cool" with their friends. While hurling insults at people who have been playing games 16 years for not being "hardcore" and going with the 360 over the wii. Despite the person with the wii also having a computer which can put out graphics equal to or greater than there 360.

Note.. thats not directed at all people who play consoles. However, you have to realize there are a lot of 360 players who have just got in the game and think they know everything after playing halo for a week.

With that being said, I have no hesitation with saying its wrong to assume *all* console players are that way. However, I feel the need to stress the fact I play both. I for one was dissappointed by "high def" because I was so use to using it already.i was like "wait.. what... where is the difference"

however, after its all said and done its illogical cause i already have a good enough comp.. I really wouldn't mind getting a ps3 XD.

As much as I love computers I currently have a laptop meaning its high hell to upgrade. so a ps3 would be lovely XD. I'd have the wii for just having fun. I'd have my laptop for eye candy. And I'd have the ps3 as some insurance I won't need vista in the near future to play games.

 

Go right ahead and exclude Drake's. I'll come back with Heavenly Sword, Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, Resistance Fall of Man, Unreal Tournament 3, Gran Turismo HD Concept/Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, and a whole host of games due out next year.

See the difference? There's one game on the PC with unsurpassed graphics, I can sit here and name PS3 games until we're both blue in the face.

 

I was going to buy a gaming PC before I decided to get an HDTV and a PS3 instead. It cost me about $2100 for my PS3 & tv (including 4 year warranty). It would've cost me more than twice that for the PC I would've built instead. I simply didn't have that kind of money so the choice was obvious (to me at least). I don't build gaming rigs that are anything but absolute top-of-the-line, and would prefer to actually build a rig capable of playing Crysis in all its glory. Unfortunately, the hardware to do that is not only outrageously expensive right now, but also very questionable whether or not it can even max out Crysis. Even Tri SLI struggles with this game, as has been noted previously in this thread.

Yeah, I knew it was a mistake when I said that. It is just a USB/bluetooth device afterall

 

Interesting read, thanks for the link. I see they've gone with a similar approach as the developers of Halo Wars.

 

Sorry, gotta be a bit OT here for a sec....

techguy2k7, what TV are you running with your PS3 and what connection are you using?

Back on topic....
I am tempted to write my thoughts on this........but.....I think I'll hold off......I could sum up everything I have to say by saying that they are both good, but it really depend on your budget, what games you like, and if you want to do anything else with the console/PC...

 

Well, I have a friend that has two PCs running 8800's. One is an A64 4000+ with an 8800 GTX, and the other is a Q6600 with two 8800 Ultras. Neither one runs Crysis smoothly, until you start getting into mid/high details, and non-native resolution. He games on 22" monitors on each system, so 1680x1050 is his native res. Both systems are running XP, btw.

I think I'll trust my friend before I take you at your word, especially when my friend's results are right in-line with what I see everywhere else on the internet.

Sure Oblivion worked. Like crap. It was unplayable outdoors. I played @ 1600x1200 w/4x AA, 16x HQ AF, HDR, max. details in-game, 4096x4096 textures, and increased vegetation draw distance and density via the config file. X1900 XTX Crossfire'd on an Opteron 175 @ 2.7GHz w/2GB PC4000 RAM. The PS3 version looks similar to what I remember from my PC, and it certainly runs better.

What's your point? This thread is about the PS3, not the Xbox360.

I'm sorry, but I immediately discount the opinion of anyone that says "more better". Besides, PS3 DIRT looks better than 360 DIRT, and it runs smoother than the PC version with equivalent settings.

I don't know why you keep mentioning the 360, but it is apparent that you own a 360 and not a PS3, and are basing your opinion of the PS3 on your 360 gaming experience, which is simply not fair, or even relevant. Oblivion on PS3 has higher details than the 360 version (by default), including significantly better texture filtering and it runs smoother.

Absolutely. The console was built for 1080P gaming. There are already first-generation PS3 games that run at this resolution. You really need to get your facts straight before commenting on this subject again, as it's clear you are severely under-informed/mis-informed.

Please tell me English is not your native language. If not, then ok. If so, I hope you are very young, in which case you should not be participating in this discussion.

Right. And I'm sure you would know this better than the actual game developers.

Your definition of "identical" is not the same as mine then, and does not align with common knowledge, so you become less credible with every statement you make at this point.

For the last time - this discussion has nothing to do with the 360, and your experience with a 360 has nothing to do with the PS3. As for your 2 year old laptop playing games well @ 1920x1200 - sure it does. Sure it does. I guess you must like medium detail settings in new games, old games, or slideshows then, because you sure as hell aren't pulling off high details in new games at that resolution on your laptop.

The PS2 never surpassed PCs of its time graphically. It could've if the launch games didn't look like crap, but they did so PS2 blew that chance. XBox was based on PC hardware anyway, and was only slightly better than the best PCs at the time GPU-wise (to be surpassed within short order).

Then you don't have a high-end desktop. Why not quote the specs of this mythical beast of yours?

Thanks for the info, Captain Obvious.

Didn't you already say that?

Whatever you say. I'd love to see what this magical computer of yours can pull off.

 

This one, using HDMI.

Very true. PS3 isn't for everyone, just as PC isn't for everyone, and they often overlap quite a bit. I'm glad to have both. Could always use an upgrade on the PC side though

 

And your opinion now means zero. I won't be continuing discussion with you.

You're worse than most console fanboys I've encountered. Congratulations.

Bull f*cking sh*t.

 

This one, using HDMI.


I ask because I am in the market for an LCD TV at the moment. I just picked up a PS3 a few days ago for 10% off at compUSA, lol. It looks pretty crummy at 480i, I really want to get it going at 1080p.


Very true. PS3 isn't for everyone, just as PC isn't for everyone, and they often overlap quite a bit. I'm glad to have both. Could always use an upgrade on the PC side though

Yup.

The way it is for me is like this:

PC is the way to go for FPS games, you can't beat it there. Sure there are some console exclusives, but IMHO, PC is the best for shooters, which are my game of choice.

On the other hand, PS3, or any console for that matter, are better for action/adventure type games, which I enjoy as well.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

--------

On another note:

Some things that are nice about the PS3 over the PC are that:

1) It is a lot cheaper
2) You won't need to upgrade it (except for maybe the HD)
3) Blue-Ray and 1080p upscaling out of the box (the big reason I got one actually)
4) You can install an OS (will be putting on Ubuntu in the near future to see how this goes)

Again, when you can pick them up for $400 or less and get Blue-Ray, upscaling, gaming, and even an OS, it is a very good deal IMHO. Obviously, you could factor in the cost of an HDTV monitor, but I am not, because I am running at 480i now on an older 27" CRT and it is still a blast.

--------

Of course, given the choice between buying a game between the PS3 and my desktop, I will always choose my desktop because the graphics will be better and the games are cheaper. However ,for lower end desktops, and non-gaming laptops, the PS3 is the way to go (or 360 for that matter, the Wii is an entire other can of worms).

 

My favorite quote of the day;"What?! Why does Call of Duty 4 look so much better on your PC?!!!" A guy living across the hall here in the dorms was genuinely surprised that a PC could make a game look better than a next-gen console.

P.S.- this doesn't have to do with the argument at hand, I just thought it was funny

 

Ha ha! .

 

Maybe by develop he means make custom maps for games like UT. I can say I used to do that; my school used to sponsor stuff like that.

 

@ techguy2k7:
I think you have never played Oblivion... or at least never configured the system. Did you know that you cannot run HDR and AA at the same time??? Or did you downloaded a mod??? I think you are making up some of your arguments from nowhere...

 

ATI cards can run HDR and AA at the same time in oblivion.

 

did you ever learn to research or try and back up some of YOUR statements before you state them.

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Link

Want screenshots?




Now tell me HDR + AA can't be done. Too bad the person that took those shots didn't enable AF or high-res distant textures, but it's still proof that AA + HDR works.

 

Bull****? I draw graphics for games. Yeah TBS games. Maybe you are blind my computers are in my sig oh mighty PS3 fan. Everything one says about the PS3 it is superior you say. Funny.

Oh sorry I don´t write english as well as you, I´m swedish.

No the PS3 version of Dirt does not look better than the PC nor the 360 version. Why don´t you compare them? It is so funny with all the hype about the PS3 the 360 still has the best GPU of the consoles out there and that shows in games, just look at all multiplats they always look better on the 360. This thread has gone into a PS3 bashing one, but I´m all in for it since the PS3 is so superior according to you. Get a life.

And yeah I draw and 3D model graphics for Turn Based Strategy games, historical wargames and has that as my hobby and on the side income.

Maybe you also develop games, or draw graphics for games, maybe No?

So your friends native res is 1680x1050. My native res is 1440x900 and Crysis runs good. Have you heard about optimizing, just like Oblivion which you apparently never optimized for "your" system since it shouldn´t run like crap at all. Same with Crysis, just optimize the game there are tons with settings you can play around with. This is what I mean with lazy people they don´t have the time nor skill to just write simple lines in an ini, cfg file.

Maybe you should compare your PS3 not to a high end PC, that would probably make you feel more comfortable since the PS3 is nowhere near a high end PC. You think it would require a high end PC to run Uncharted? It would certainly not.

 

My apologies for that, I just read the ATI cards can do it, I thought it was general.

 

On the 360 part, thats cos the PS3 version is a port... Although, obivously the PS3 is not as powerfull as a high end PC, but consoles will win every time on quality games (imo) and fun with friends.

 

The GF8 can too.You just have to enable it in the control panel

. It is not related to Oblivion directly. Geforce 6 and 7 just can't do SM3.0 HDR + AA at the same time. That's all.

You would have thought this to be common knowledge now but it doesn't seem so....

 

haha yeah apparently not eh