Feels like 2007 in here honestly, if people don't know by now they are blind.
:-P
Comment has been collapsed.
2007 :3 Crysis, empty Benchmark game, but has slightly better graphics then most games nowadays
Comment has been collapsed.
crysis 1 was ok, 2 was horrible, 3 looks meh
it just goes to show though that no matter how good the graphics are the gameplay is what makes the game
there have been plenty of games recently and coming in 2013 that have both though
Comment has been collapsed.
There are a couple of things that Crysis does better than even Far Cry 3 though. Try shooting the palm tree leaves in Crysis and they move about realistically. Far Cry 3 doesn't have that physics based environment :P It was quite surprising when I found out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh absolutely, there's some things that are admittedly slightly lacklustre, but those aren't so much directly graphics issues as they are a lack of engine features / implementations. The whole physics system of FC3 isn't anything to write home about either, but it does the job perfectly well for what the game is, and fits in with the rest of the engine and its' feel fine - it's not Portal 2 or HL2, no need for super good physics.
As for specifically the point you raised - 1) game also came out on console, and 2) I think they wanted as broad a potential player/customer base as possible. Both reasons to not include deformation and damage models on foliage. The game somehow, magically, still runs at an acceptable minimum of 40 fps on my old old old-assed MSI N430GT (an Nvidia GT430, if you hadn't guessed). Yes, THAT old a card. Obviously on all low, but even then, it actually looks somewhat impressive, still. A sign they really went for high scalability.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't consider the consoles :P For me foliage deformation is key towards a living, breathing world which Far Cry 3 manages to pull off in nearly every single other aspect. It's just a little disappointing that they weren't able to match Crysis in that regard.
Wow if you can play it on low and still consider it impressive then it must be very well optimised. I have to say I'm impressed with the performance on my PC, but this is the first game I've played where I might have to try overclocking to play on maximum :P
Ever since I read the review "Like Skyrim with guns.", it's got me thinking. I'd love to see a strong mod community for Far Cry 3 (not necessarily steam workshop). You can already build custom maps, I'd like to see other content/adjustments made and who knows, maybe we could have foliage deformation :) I don't see this happening anytime soon though, just me hoping!
Comment has been collapsed.
cough i said "recently and coming in 2013", recently as in far cry 3, hitman ect
and yes i know what far cry 3 looks like on max i do have it on uplay and steam haha lool
Comment has been collapsed.
nintendo creates consoles with innovative systems, but they everytime put aside the graphics and they have some games, that make nintendo more a party console cause is more funnier play with friends, microsoft and sony consoles are more directed to online multiplayer and a big fight between graphics.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah... the problem between consoles and PC is that if you have a PC later you are going to have upgrade it or you are going to have problems with some games cause the hardware compatibility but the PC games are cheaper and in consoles you don't need to upgrade just buy the games but are expensive as ****
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought PC's had surpassed consoles ever since Crysis 1 was released. But becuase crytek pandered to the consoles, they dumbed down the Crysis 2 engine.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can play te same in PC as in consoles, in PC I can use controller and play in my Tv using PC like "console" too, and also PC games are cheaper that console games, and play shooter in consoles is a really bad thing. SO I don't understand why console is better, if in PC I can do all the same as in console + better graphics and controls for some games like shooters.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really see a point in arguing between consoles and PC.
It's like arguing between eggs and milk, they're just different products and people buy which one they find better to use. Graphics will always be advancing further and further. You can't logically compare PC gaming to console gaming because there are different video cards, other parts in the market.
People who use consoles say the console's graphics are better because most console owners own a PC and they think they qualify as a 'PC Gamer', meaning they play a miniclip game on the Internet and say how console's graphics are better.
I never and will never care about the graphics of games - I grew up playing mario and old games like that and at that time no one cared about the graphics, they just found the game fun. As long as I can run a video game without lag even with lowest of settings but I find it fun, I'll play it
Comment has been collapsed.
You are right but the main reason why there are still consoles is the simplicity of consoles, you just have to put the game in and then can play, without first having to check if the PC can run this, etc.
BTW please don't start a PC vs Consoles War ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
And what's the etc? Checking specs for the game takes like 5 minutes. There's also websites such as canirunit.com - they're not always accurate but they're quite close.
I'm not starting PC vs Console wars, I'm just saying how worthless their 'PC vs console' war arguments are becoming and there's no point. People buy what they prefer.
Comment has been collapsed.
That just depends on every person how they interpret what they want to judge on.
I've seen some people judge games from water reflection.
I've seen others judge games from graphics.
Myself I judge games from how much of free play you have, for example having different choices in the campaign.
Comment has been collapsed.
I judge games based on how many pixels the bricks have.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wasn't it always that PC graphics are better than consoles (with the right graphics card)?
BTW About the German voice: He says that the shadows, anti-alialising and textures are better on PC and that the PC graphics is the best, XBox graphics is the second best and PS3 graphics is the worst. The consoles have only 720p and that the PS3 version flickers often. The other things (animations, etc.) are almost the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
True, but you use a PC for more than just gaming.
Comment has been collapsed.
In terms of the hardware it is, as the consoles are sold at a loss and make up for it with game sales. Same goes for people buying games new.
But I don't buy many games new. I generally wait for a Steam sale. So it's not as simple as just looking at hardware cost and performance, unless consoles get discounts as large and as regularly as Steam sales.
Has anyone run any numbers on the price/performance comparison after taking Steam sales into account ?
Lets not even get started on pay what you want bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it's made for the console and ported to PC, there usually won't be much of a difference. If it's the other way, then you will most likely be able to notice a difference improvements on the PC.
Unfortunately more and more games are being made for the consoles and ported to PC.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll play on whatever. I have consoles with hundreds of games and a PC with hundreds of games. I'm not playing a picture, but a game, so as long as I know what I'm doing, I'll play it.
Comment has been collapsed.
ladies and gentlemen, we have a clairvoyant here!
j/k, but the point is that you cannot judge the next generation of consoles, especially since there is almost no info about it ATM. And it's not only about the setup, check the species of xbox360/ps3, and they seem relatively weak, but you don't have the OS eating half of the resources, and various other things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dont you still not get the point of consoles? All already know that graphics are better on pc but the point of consoles is that the game runs allways you dont need to upgrade anything it just works every time and all console users get the same experience!
Comment has been collapsed.
Only 1 such person?:))) I got a 2 weeks warn on a forum for creating such a topic after I got reported by people who thought it is insulting to think PCs have better graphics than consoles.
Comment has been collapsed.
"some time ago"? i think you mean ALWAYS
you can't even judge by a multiplatform port either as they are originally designed for console and the pc port wont take full advantage of the pc hardware
Comment has been collapsed.
Played assassins creed on PS3 and both the textures and animations were terrible. I couldn't believe how bad they were.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a PS3 and I've mostly been a PC gamer for past half of my life. My main reason for buying a console was because I wanted to play games that were PS3 exclusive. Another reason was because there were some games I didn't wanna bother getting for PC.(i.e BF3, Call of duty games, sports games, Fighting games..etc.) Graphics didn't really matter to me but haven't they always been better :p, anyway i skimmed over half this thread and please people, keep in mind that pc games may be cheap, but pc's are not.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's how it usually goes. When new consoles are released, they are stronger, than PCs. But with time the latter grows closer and eventually leaves consoles behind.
We are at the end of the time of the current, 7th generation (Btw it lasted longer than any of the previous ones), new consoles are almost here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe he meant that, for the price of the console, they're stronger than the average PC of equivalent price. Hell, my Xbox is still probably more powerful than this PC and the PC's newer. I should probably upgrade.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, as far as price/performance goes, they were better. But he only mentioned performance.
But it's too late for the next generation. PC advances in price/performance much faster, and has been all this time. When next-gen comes out, they will have outdated hardware and even though they will be cheap, you will be able to build better PCs with cheaper prices (you can already build a better PC with same price).
And with Steam targeting the living room gaming market, consoles are in a real threat this time. Not to mention all the obvious money hungry and restricting moves MS and Sony have been doing in anticipation for next-gen, people do not like how the future looks for consoles. They need to up their game to be able to face PC gaming next-gen.
Comment has been collapsed.
"When next-gen comes out, they will have outdated hardware"
What makes you say that? They didn't plan to what hardware to use five years ago and stick to it? They update so it's good for the time. That's how they sell. It'll be the same as every other console generation ever.
Comment has been collapsed.
They'll use what is already on the market, as they need to already start selling by 2014, and they need time to develop and manufacture them. So, if they use current hardware while PC moves forward because there are still 2 more years for our already set and continuously evolving platform, how will they not be outdated when they come out?
There are already vague specs available, and those are already only mid-end as far as PC hardware goes right now. Not extreme-end, not high-end, but middle.
Of course these are all speculations, but they're based on, what I hope are, logical conclusions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Computers are moving to 8 GB of RAM
4 GHz quad cores with a simple OC
1-2GB graphics cards running at 800+ MHz that can do 1080p on TV screens at 60 fps.
Checking on the (closed system) Wii U:
CPU: IBM PowerPC 750-based tri-core processor "Espresso"[5] reportedly clocked at 1.24 GHz.[82]
GPU: AMD Radeon High Definition [5] processor codenamed "Latte" with an eDRAM cache built onto the die[83] reportedly clocked at 550 MHz.[82]
Memory
2 GB RAM (with 1 GB reserved for the operating system and unavailable to games)
Storage
8 GB or 32 GB Internal flash memory
I have games with larger capacities than that.
My last computer was far better than this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe, I don't remember the exact technology from back there, but I'm sure a PC that was better than X360 or PS3 was much more expensive.
Btw consoles aren't stronger because they have better parts, they are better because they are put together for gaming.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is going to come out new generation consoles very soon but I don't think they will have better graphics than PC for long because people are upgrading their computers all the time and game devs are upgrading their graphics all the time too. PC has more potential for new games because it's upgradable system. Consoles aren't. For example, Xbox360 was released on November/December 2005 and it really hasn't had any important hardware updates (except for overheating and stuff). And the graphics are from that time for most of the games too. Of course they slightly upgrade them but they are still much too old for nowadays. Now all we have left is to wait for them to launch new consoles. I think next Autumn/Winter there are going to be atleast 2 new consoles - one from Microsoft and one from Sony. Nintendo already launched WiiU so they probably won't launch new console except a bit upgraded WiiU version. Maybe after 3 or 4 years there will be new console from Nintendo.
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically speaking there is no way a console can have better graphics than a PC. Games do look better on consoles only when consoles are new 1-2 years or so but PCs evolve faster while the consoles have a 8 years life span.
The real problem is that games are being developed for consoles and ported on PC. In this case, PC games will be limited by consoles hardware and lack proper optimization (not all but most o them).
As for those who think consoles have better graphics there isn't much to say. They are blind, have a 10 years PC or they simply are fanboys and act like any fanboy does, no matter what.
Anyway, graphics don't matter that much. There are other aspects that make a game a good game. Hell, I still play HL1, Max Payne 1 & 2 and old NES games :))
Comment has been collapsed.
"Technically speaking there is no way a console can have better graphics than a PC."
No, technically speaking it's the other way around, economics are the reasons consoles will not have better graphics than PC's. It is not economical for a console line to keep up with technological progress. This is why PC's currently have an edge. From a purely technical standpoint, on even ground a console will win every time. One single hardware configuration is easier to optimize for, allowing developers to use all sorts of low-level tricks to get more performance from the hardware. If you were to pit a console against a PC with equivalent power, the console should win in games performance every single time. The reason PC's can beat the pants off a console is because it's just not practical to build a new console every year or two, so they can't keep up with progress.
And no, graphics are not the most important thing, but power is important for more things than rendering objects. Take Planetside and Planetside 2, for instance. Graphics completely aside, even if the sequel looked like the original, there are things about the sequel that simply couldn't be done in the original. Things like the realistic physics and the scale of the battles present in Planetside 2 could not be done on the hardware widely available when Planetside came out. They cut corners to deliver a workable product, much like how WoW was heavily optimized to be workable on dialup internet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games never look better on consoles. Modern PC's already have better specs than consoles of the next generation and probably the generation after that too. The average PC is 4 times stronger than a current-gen console. The only reason consoles can catch up a bit is because of porting.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're making blanket statements that just aren't true. Sure, it's true right now if you have good hardware with the right games, but at other times when the generation gap for consoles wasn't so long, or for people who don't have the best hardware, or for bad ports, or so many other possible situations that blanket statement you made doesn't apply. Consoles can never provide better graphics than PC's? Never ever ever? Could not possibly be so in past, present, or future? No.
Comment has been collapsed.
Irrelevant, by the time consoles reach an economical and technological level to surpass PCs, they will basically be the same thing, we will live in a different era then, and this point will no longer matter.
My apologies for such a late reply, I haven't had a chance to read this whole topic again since it started and I've been playing catch-up. Was just voicing my opinion here though, so there's no need to bother replying.
Comment has been collapsed.
Consoles will never have better hardware (and thus graphics)than pcs. The reason for this is because the time it takes them to take the console from prototype to full production and begin selling, new pc hardware has already been released that and the fact that they don't put the top end stuff into the consoles, it is all budget hardware from up to several years prior. If they did put all the top end stuff into consoles they would cost a hell of alot more than they do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Console makers will just have to realize this, and start selling upgradeable PC's with their own software on. Like Valve wants to do. When Valve does this, consoles will effectively die.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bzzzt If that's the case why hasn't it happened sooner?
The thing about consoles is that they're cheap, easy to use, (supposedly) reliable, and already fit within the typical home's TV setup. PC's can be damned expensive, require a level of expertise to build or maintain that most people still don't have, and are usually dedicated setups rather than extensions of existing home infrastructure. All for benefits that Joe Average won't appreciate.
Consoles are still the mainstream gaming platform, far more so than PCs. It has been this way for at least two decades, and there are absolutely no signs this will change. Yes, modern consoles are technically more like crippled PCs nowadays, and that can be attributed to copying what PCs have been doing for yonks. But people don't (or shouldn't) buy PCs or consoles for hardware, but what can be done with them. And when it comes to gaming, consoles beat PCs for most people in the market. It's the exact same reason why most people don't buy supercars: the benefits don't justify the additional cost.
And with the growing adoption of laptops and tablets over traditional PCs, other devices that are practically impossible to upgrade or modify, I therefore think your crystal ball needs recalibration. Un-upgradable boxes fit the needs for most of the market, and since this market's preferences haven't/aren't changing, they're not going to go away any time soon.
Granted, like supercars, the average console of the future will further incorporate features from yesterday's elite machines, but that doesn't mean they will become something akin to yesterday's elite machines. Your modern honda could probably stand toe-to-toe with or even beat a 50's ferrari in a race. Doesn't mean your Honda is a sportscar.
This is also the reason I think PCs won't die off despite many predictions I've heard. The PCs are the consumer-level elite machine. They're at the forefront of technology, and thus offer the power and flexibility needed for top-end tasks that are vital for modern business. They may become less popular now as old niches move to laptops, tablets, mediacenters etc. but the PC will remain because the PC has areas of expertise for which there is still no actual substitute for what it can do better than it can, and therefore take its place. High-end gaming is one of them.
If history is anything to go by, the future of technology is ultimately going to be more diverse, not less.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is getting ever so easy to custom build your PC, which is cheaper than buying prefabs and without the software bloat. Overclocking and installing hardware is a few clicks and sliding of parts. Why get expensive upgrades when you can make your graphics card a generation faster or add a few hundred MHz to the processor and improve your gaming experience?
You just need to read or watch videos to learn how to do it, and get a AM cooler.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's never that easy. I've personally built at least 5 rigs, and witnessed the construction of many more, to know that intimately. Whether it's AM parts that don't actually fit the specific iteration of your hardware, discovering the hard way that one's RAID setup will actually work faster on SATA2 than SATA3, or windows stubbornly refusing to install to the correct drive (all problems I've actually had), the fact is that PCs are almost never buy, plug, and play. If Average Joe in your corner of the world can actually handle it, please tell me where that is so I can move there and escape the lagoon of ignorance I currently live in.
There's also manufacturing and development costs to consider. At launch, the x360, ps3 and wii-U all sold at a loss on launch, with game and peripheral sales meant to compensate. I expect that designing, developing and maintaining a new box that would be easily modular, and then developing upgrades to that hardware is going to be far more costly than console developers would prefer. Game developers might also have issue with it because the consoles are static and reliable platforms to develop for; no need to account for a hundred thousand different potential setups. Remember back when Rage didn't work on ATI cards? There's also the piracy situation to consider. Not that current consoles aren't already pirated to hell and back (despite what many, many people believe), but a modular console would be even easier to crack.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is still the cost of investment and the self-limiting nature of ignorance. Getting a PC built or upgraded is still more expensive in the long run than buying a console. And people may not even be properly aware of either the benefits of playing on PC or that they even -can- go an upgrade their rigs.
Comment has been collapsed.
PC beats the console in every aspects , The Prices ( you don`t have to pay steam for service , and games here are very cheap with or without the sales ) . The Controls ( Mouse and keyboard will increase the limits on how much keys you have , also you can plug gamepad if you want ) and much much more .
And PC beat the consoles on the graphics long time ago , and it will also beat the next gen console .
Comment has been collapsed.
Pc has been better. Xbox 360 has what 512mb of ram, that's a joke to have that on a pc.
Comment has been collapsed.
72 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by nigelt74
730 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by adam1224
361 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Golwar
13 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by looseangel
1,289 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by stlpaul
304 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by RobbyRatpoison
2,047 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by WaxWorm
4 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by holycate
13 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by molu13
90 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by 76561198082881386
22 Comments - Last post 43 minutes ago by hallak65
79 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by quijote3000
218 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by nbaman2410
1 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by adam1224
As title say, I say "now", but it was some time ago too, but some ppl still think that console graphics are better that PCs, so here is a comparison of Assassin's Creed III on PC with consoles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrMpEpazXYo
Tell what do you think, for me this was obviously but I though is a good thing to share :D. This video is in german, I do not understand german, but is still a good comparison.
Comment has been collapsed.