How does gears PC look better than 360?

I will get Gears on PC because of the new content but I dont see how it looks better besides less aliasing. I was wondering if someone could point it out so I have a better idea of what has been upgraded.

I'm surprised the Gamespot preview brought up aliasing. All 360 games have 4xaa. Never noticed any jaggies on a 360 game.

360's weakness with all games is low af.

F.E.A.R. isn't a fair comparison, it was a bad port. Gears on 360 has very detailed textures... honestly I doubt there will really be that much of a noticeable difference.MyopicCanadian

People who got to see it at E3 said there was very noticalbe difference and that it looks much better. It isn't even running on the same version of UE3 as Gears for 360 was.

360 games can be jaggie. My gripe with the 360 version is this overuse of bloom. Aswell as the fact that PC's will be able to display very high res textures of 1920x1200 and higher. Please don't give me crap about the 360 upscaling. PC is native.

The 360 version looks like its covering up cracks, the PC version looks smooooth, aswell as now having extra content.

I will get Gears on PC because of the new content but I dont see how it looks better besides less aliasing. I was wondering if someone could point it out so I have a better idea of what has been upgraded.

SacredShotgun

Like some have said, textures textures textures....and resolution. Call me crazy, but even on a high-def TV (1080p or whatever it is) console games just dont look as good as my PC does with 90-dollar 7600GT.

As for antialiasing, I just dont like how consoles go about doing it. It just doesnt look right, or atleast what I am used to on PC. Instead of actually getting rid of the jaggies, it looks (to me) as if there is a light smearing of vaseline on every edge of something. Just look at Battlefield: Modern Combat if you want a good example. Gears wasnt as obvious as Modern Combat, but the effect was still there. Such has been my experience at least.

And I gotta be honest, the appearance is the last thing on my mind. WHen I was busy blasting the baddies and stuff, I didnt exactly stop and smell the roses. Gears might have sold a lot of copies off the bat because it is the "latest and greatest" concerning technology, but it is a great game for one reason: gameplay. Hell, I would have been happy if it used an older game engine and still had the same gameplay.

Of course, my whole opinion towards graphics could be changed when I get my 8800GTS in the mail :twisted: Chances are I will turn into a graphics nut :?

Of course, my whole opinion towards graphics could be changed when I get my 8800GTS in the mail :twisted: Chances are I will turn into a graphics nut :?

mrbojangles25

Like some have said, textures textures textures....and resolution. Call me crazy, but even on a high-def TV (1080p or whatever it is) console games just dont look as good as my PC does with 90-dollar 7600GT.

As for antialiasing, I just dont like how consoles go about doing it. It just doesnt look right, or atleast what I am used to on PC. Instead of actually getting rid of the jaggies, it looks (to me) as if there is a light smearing of vaseline on every edge of something. Just look at Battlefield: Modern Combat if you want a good example. Gears wasnt as obvious as Modern Combat, but the effect was still there. Such has been my experience at least.

And I gotta be honest, the appearance is the last thing on my mind. WHen I was busy blasting the baddies and stuff, I didnt exactly stop and smell the roses. Gears might have sold a lot of copies off the bat because it is the "latest and greatest" concerning technology, but it is a great game for one reason: gameplay. Hell, I would have been happy if it used an older game engine and still had the same gameplay.

Of course, my whole opinion towards graphics could be changed when I get my 8800GTS in the mail :twisted: Chances are I will turn into a graphics nut :?

mrbojangles25

Gonna have to disagree with ya here MrB. Some of the best graphics for games I have seen has been on my Xbox 360. Fight Night Round 3 is particularly impressive, match that with my 56" 1080p and it is quite simply AMAZING. GoW also looks just simply amazing on my TV. Forza 2 and it's car models are just breath taking, and the graphics for that new Ace Combat game are also just flat out great. I can garuntee the 360 has more graphics horse power then your 7600GT.

But I do agree GoW will look better on the PC. They are adding higher-res textures (I mean, they should, it's been a year since release). Though I do not believe the 360 is not capable of more either. Obviously the games the 360 releases over the next couple years will continue to push the graphical envelope (as will the PC).

F.E.A.R. isn't a fair comparison, it was a bad port. Gears on 360 has very detailed textures... honestly I doubt there will really be that much of a noticeable difference.MyopicCanadian

Not necessarily. There's hundreds of low-resolution textures that rear their ugly head. The gun models, character models (such as ears and hair), and other things that don't took too well.

[QUOTE="SacredShotgun"]

I will get Gears on PC because of the new content but I dont see how it looks better besides less aliasing. I was wondering if someone could point it out so I have a better idea of what has been upgraded.

marc5477

I was wondering if you could point out the differences. I know that my pc is far more powerful than my 360 and is sure to run it on max, but that doesnt mean it will lookway better as far as I know. Thats why I posted this topic so I can know the difference in graphics. But the modding does sound exiting.

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]F.E.A.R. isn't a fair comparison, it was a bad port. Gears on 360 has very detailed textures... honestly I doubt there will really be that much of a noticeable difference.trix5817

People who got to see it at E3 said there was very noticalbe difference and that it looks much better. It isn't even running on the same version of UE3 as Gears for 360 was.

Ya gears is using a newew version of the UE3 engine and it also looks like they cranked up the texture quality. Then to add to this if you have a good enough computer you crank up AA and so forth beyond what the 360 can support. But primary thing i've seen so far is the textures

[QUOTE="marc5477"][QUOTE="SacredShotgun"]

I will get Gears on PC because of the new content but I dont see how it looks better besides less aliasing. I was wondering if someone could point it out so I have a better idea of what has been upgraded.

SacredShotgun

I was wondering if you could point out the differences. I know that my pc is far more powerful than my 360 and is sure to run it on max, but that doesnt mean it will lookway better as far as I know. Thats why I posted this topic so I can know the difference in graphics. But the modding does sound exiting.

So what are is your computers specs that make it soo much better? By that comment you must be running at least a quad core, 8 cores if you have your hands on servers we'll go with 4gb ram and sli 8800s to be "far" more powerful.

fighting over whats better between consoles and pc's is pointless and always will be of course a pc will be more powerful but that doesnt mean all its games will look better than a consoles does.

Games that are made for a console and ported to pc are in most cases done poorly so the console counterpart then looks better but pc games that are ported to consoles are almost always better on pc.

In terms of power between a 360 thats a year old and a newer pc of course the pc should be more powerful but that just means you need a game to actually use all that power so stop arguing which is more powerful :P

Well, ALL games are better graphically on PC because the PC hardware is more powerful. A 8800 ultra SLI array paired with 2 gigs of ram is farbetterthantheXbox360hardware.IthinkIwenttoofar.

Well,anotherreasonarethetextureresolution.TheresolutionofthetexturesinagamearehigheronPCthantheonesinconsoles.

Idon'tthinkinmoreresasonnow...

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

[QUOTE="trix5817"]

[QUOTE="MyopicCanadian"]F.E.A.R. isn't a fair comparison, it was a bad port. Gears on 360 has very detailed textures... honestly I doubt there will really be that much of a noticeable difference.karmageddon2k4

People who got to see it at E3 said there was very noticalbe difference and that it looks much better. It isn't even running on the same version of UE3 as Gears for 360 was.

Ya gears is using a newew version of the UE3 engine and it also looks like they cranked up the texture quality. Then to add to this if you have a good enough computer you crank up AA and so forth beyond what the 360 can support. But primary thing i've seen so far is the textures

Well I guess I need to check out a high res trailer when they release it, since the leaked video I saw before E3 looked exactly like the 360 version except for the different levels. Also, I don't see an increased level of AA making much of a difference, since when I use my 360 on my PC monitor all the lines are clean... I don't notice any jaggies :)

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

edwinh2209

There is no way a $100 video card will be able to play this game well unless you are looking at the lowest setting possible. More than likely it will recommend either an 8 series or 7950 card. It also makes no sense comparing the 360 hardware with the PC because the architecture differs significantly. Unlike the PC it was designed solely for gaming. In terms of graphicsGears has some of the best I have seen in any game to date.

[QUOTE="SacredShotgun"][QUOTE="marc5477"][QUOTE="SacredShotgun"]

I will get Gears on PC because of the new content but I dont see how it looks better besides less aliasing. I was wondering if someone could point it out so I have a better idea of what has been upgraded.

karmageddon2k4

I was wondering if you could point out the differences. I know that my pc is far more powerful than my 360 and is sure to run it on max, but that doesnt mean it will lookway better as far as I know. Thats why I posted this topic so I can know the difference in graphics. But the modding does sound exiting.

So what are is your computers specs that make it soo much better? By that comment you must be running at least a quad core, 8 cores if you have your hands on servers we'll go with 4gb ram and sli 8800s to be "far" more powerful.

Wow that was a completely radical and not to mention false statement. Calm down buddy and do some research.

E6600

Ge-force 8800gtx

2gb ram

dual-core

And yes, all my games have looked FAR BETTER ON MY PC THAN MY XBOX 360.:)

[QUOTE="edwinh2209"]

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

Deihmos

There is no way a $100 video card will be able to play this game well unless you are looking at the lowest setting possible. More than likely it will recommend either an 8 series or 7950 card. It also makes no sense comparing the 360 hardware with the PC because the architecture differs significantly. Unlike the PC it was designed solely for gaming. In terms of graphicsGears has some of the best I have seen in any game to date.

Believe itor not, and despite all the bragging you hear on these forums about hardware, the majority of gamers have a card equal to a 7600GT or less. Need proof? Go log onto Steam and take their survey, then look at the results which are collected from a few hundred thousand players. I feel this is a good survey as well since just about "every gamer" owns Halflife 2 and needs to log onto Steam.

My point is that no developer would make a game strictly for high-end cards. If you need a 7950 to just play the game, and an 8000 series to play it well, the game will only cater to the 1% of people fortunate enough to have this card, not to mention you will alienate those potential customers with the less capable cards. If the game does play poorly on a two to three-year old card, it is more likely going to be due to poor porting on the developer's behalf.

Even the developers of Crysis know this since, unofficially, the game will run on a 6800 card and will be maxed out (Dx9) on a 7800GTX. I have no doubt that my 90-dollar 7600GT will be able to play GoW at an equal detail as is found on 360. If not, then it will be pretty damn close and more than acceptable.

I do agree with you, however, Gears is problably one of the best looking games out there. I am more worried about how they will port the controls over and whether or not it will be Vista-only.

I am more worried about how they will port the controls over and whether or not it will be Vista-only.

mrbojangles25

I haven't heard anything about the possibility of this game being a Vista exclusive. That would really suck :(

So what are is your computers specs that make it soo much better? By that comment you must be running at least a quad core, 8 cores if you have your hands on servers we'll go with 4gb ram and sli 8800s to be "far" more powerful.

karmageddon2k4

Just to let you know... that thing you call a "processor" in the 360, just because it says 3 cores doesnt mean it can compare to an AMD X2 or Core 2 Duo. Its made by IBM and since last I heard they pretty much only sell servers with intel chips now. Since your just so retarded in this post its hard not to smash you because 4gb of RAM has hardely any preformance gain over 2gb (360 has 512mb running at 700mhz). Also one overclocked 7600GT could most likely out preform the "custom" 360 GPU with 10mb of built in memory (10mb could probably run 800x600 at most on any PC game). So overall PC > 360

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="edwinh2209"]

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

mrbojangles25

There is no way a $100 video card will be able to play this game well unless you are looking at the lowest setting possible. More than likely it will recommend either an 8 series or 7950 card. It also makes no sense comparing the 360 hardware with the PC because the architecture differs significantly. Unlike the PC it was designed solely for gaming. In terms of graphicsGears has some of the best I have seen in any game to date.

Believe itor not, and despite all the bragging you hear on these forums about hardware, the majority of gamers have a card equal to a 7600GT or less. Need proof? Go log onto Steam and take their survey, then look at the results which are collected from a few hundred thousand players. I feel this is a good survey as well since just about "every gamer" owns Halflife 2 and needs to log onto Steam.

My point is that no developer would make a game strictly for high-end cards. If you need a 7950 to just play the game, and an 8000 series to play it well, the game will only cater to the 1% of people fortunate enough to have this card, not to mention you will alienate those potential customers with the less capable cards. If the game does play poorly on a two to three-year old card, it is more likely going to be due to poor porting on the developer's behalf.

Even the developers of Crysis know this since, unofficially, the game will run on a 6800 card and will be maxed out (Dx9) on a 7800GTX. I have no doubt that my 90-dollar 7600GT will be able to play GoW at an equal detail as is found on 360. If not, then it will be pretty damn close and more than acceptable.

I do agree with you, however, Gears is problably one of the best looking games out there. I am more worried about how they will port the controls over and whether or not it will be Vista-only.

How can the 7600 GT beat the 360 graphically? That sounds so riduculous, I don't even know what to say to you. You're reminding me of that guy who was saying his computer was high end and could run oblivion on max. Turned out to have 7300 LE:?

How can the 7600 GT beat the 360 graphically? That sounds so riduculous, I don't even know what to say to you. You're reminding me of that guy who was saying his computer was high end and could run oblivion on max. Turned out to have 7300 LE:?

theking52

Lets take a look at this comparison...

7600GT overclocked 620mhz/800mhz (voltmod) 256mb ram 128bit GDDR3

360 "Custom" ATI 500mhz 10mb GDDR3 (no speed given) 128bit

As far as I can tell the 1080p is equivilient to 1920x1080 so the 7600gt has a higher max resolution. Also let me refer you to the Quake 4 for Xbox 360 incident. GS reviewer said that "Frame rate gets downright atrocious in spots." The reason Xbox games look so good is they are designed for ONE system with a constant system spec. They can pull every last proccess out of the xbox 360 for a perfect 30fps and make it look good.

I think his 7600GT could run neck and neck with that 360 GPU, if not better.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="edwinh2209"]

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

theking52

There is no way a $100 video card will be able to play this game well unless you are looking at the lowest setting possible. More than likely it will recommend either an 8 series or 7950 card. It also makes no sense comparing the 360 hardware with the PC because the architecture differs significantly. Unlike the PC it was designed solely for gaming. In terms of graphicsGears has some of the best I have seen in any game to date.

Believe itor not, and despite all the bragging you hear on these forums about hardware, the majority of gamers have a card equal to a 7600GT or less. Need proof? Go log onto Steam and take their survey, then look at the results which are collected from a few hundred thousand players. I feel this is a good survey as well since just about "every gamer" owns Halflife 2 and needs to log onto Steam.

My point is that no developer would make a game strictly for high-end cards. If you need a 7950 to just play the game, and an 8000 series to play it well, the game will only cater to the 1% of people fortunate enough to have this card, not to mention you will alienate those potential customers with the less capable cards. If the game does play poorly on a two to three-year old card, it is more likely going to be due to poor porting on the developer's behalf.

Even the developers of Crysis know this since, unofficially, the game will run on a 6800 card and will be maxed out (Dx9) on a 7800GTX. I have no doubt that my 90-dollar 7600GT will be able to play GoW at an equal detail as is found on 360. If not, then it will be pretty damn close and more than acceptable.

I do agree with you, however, Gears is problably one of the best looking games out there. I am more worried about how they will port the controls over and whether or not it will be Vista-only.

How can the 7600 GT beat the 360 graphically? That sounds so riduculous, I don't even know what to say to you. You're reminding me of that guy who was saying his computer was high end and could run oblivion on max. Turned out to have 7300 LE:?

Well heres some proof With the Game Prey Heres a Mid range Pc With a Gfx Card = to a Geforce 6600

First Pic is the 360 and the second is PC

Xbox 360 Versus Mid-Spec PC Comparison

Keeper Fortress

360

PC :P

Now tell me that the 360 is so much or equal to the PC how come it cant handle a Doom 3 Engine made back in 2004 on high setting with textures/detail.

Also Heres More With a High Ended PC VS 360

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6154261/p-4.html

I will get Gears on PC because of the new content but I dont see how it looks better besides less aliasing. I was wondering if someone could point it out so I have a better idea of what has been upgraded.

SacredShotgun

Gears of War 360 = fixed resolution. End of story.

Oh yeah, and maybe reworked textures, and DX10 enhancements.

Gears also will have more content04dcarraher

Yeah, this is what I'm most looking foward to. I think the Gamespot preview said there would be five extra levels or something like that.

yknow when they showed the PC Gears at the Microsoft Conference, i think they were using an xbox360 for it. As i saw the little "Y" button icon on the bottom mid screen for him to look at something.

[QUOTE="theking52"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="edwinh2209"]

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

04dcarraher

There is no way a $100 video card will be able to play this game well unless you are looking at the lowest setting possible. More than likely it will recommend either an 8 series or 7950 card. It also makes no sense comparing the 360 hardware with the PC because the architecture differs significantly. Unlike the PC it was designed solely for gaming. In terms of graphicsGears has some of the best I have seen in any game to date.

Believe itor not, and despite all the bragging you hear on these forums about hardware, the majority of gamers have a card equal to a 7600GT or less. Need proof? Go log onto Steam and take their survey, then look at the results which are collected from a few hundred thousand players. I feel this is a good survey as well since just about "every gamer" owns Halflife 2 and needs to log onto Steam.

My point is that no developer would make a game strictly for high-end cards. If you need a 7950 to just play the game, and an 8000 series to play it well, the game will only cater to the 1% of people fortunate enough to have this card, not to mention you will alienate those potential customers with the less capable cards. If the game does play poorly on a two to three-year old card, it is more likely going to be due to poor porting on the developer's behalf.

Even the developers of Crysis know this since, unofficially, the game will run on a 6800 card and will be maxed out (Dx9) on a 7800GTX. I have no doubt that my 90-dollar 7600GT will be able to play GoW at an equal detail as is found on 360. If not, then it will be pretty damn close and more than acceptable.

I do agree with you, however, Gears is problably one of the best looking games out there. I am more worried about how they will port the controls over and whether or not it will be Vista-only.

How can the 7600 GT beat the 360 graphically? That sounds so riduculous, I don't even know what to say to you. You're reminding me of that guy who was saying his computer was high end and could run oblivion on max. Turned out to have 7300 LE:?

Well heres some proof With the Game Prey Heres a Mid range Pc With a Gfx Card = to a Geforce 6600

First Pic is the 360 and the second is PC

Xbox 360 Versus Mid-Spec PC Comparison

Keeper Fortress

360

PC :P

Now tell me that the 360 is so much or equal to the PC how come it cant handle a Doom 3 Engine made back in 2004 on high setting with textures/detail.

wasnt that game made in the early days for the 360. dont think it used the 360's potential to its fullest at that time :P

Xenos is comparable to a X1950 Pro which is really the X1800XT. So Xenos > 7600GT or 6600 GT for that matter.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="theking52"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="edwinh2209"]

you don't need a $3,500.00 pc for it to play/look better than the 360. All you really need is about $900.00... any (ONCE AGAIN) ANY! $100.00 video card on any chip higher than a E6300 would absolutely beat a 360 on a "graphics" benchmark. the 360 is so busy crunching the numbers for everything, including AI... when an Intel E6300 takes care of AI and the cheap $100.00 card handles just the graphics... no, no 360 can outperform in terms of AA or AF compared to a PC.. just simply dont happen. The 360 is running on solid hardware, no upgrades. the hardware was designed sometime ago. Any PC can simply download pacthes or upgrades... come on... consoles are a joke.

Faephoenix_Eyes

There is no way a $100 video card will be able to play this game well unless you are looking at the lowest setting possible. More than likely it will recommend either an 8 series or 7950 card. It also makes no sense comparing the 360 hardware with the PC because the architecture differs significantly. Unlike the PC it was designed solely for gaming. In terms of graphicsGears has some of the best I have seen in any game to date.

Believe itor not, and despite all the bragging you hear on these forums about hardware, the majority of gamers have a card equal to a 7600GT or less. Need proof? Go log onto Steam and take their survey, then look at the results which are collected from a few hundred thousand players. I feel this is a good survey as well since just about "every gamer" owns Halflife 2 and needs to log onto Steam.

My point is that no developer would make a game strictly for high-end cards. If you need a 7950 to just play the game, and an 8000 series to play it well, the game will only cater to the 1% of people fortunate enough to have this card, not to mention you will alienate those potential customers with the less capable cards. If the game does play poorly on a two to three-year old card, it is more likely going to be due to poor porting on the developer's behalf.

Even the developers of Crysis know this since, unofficially, the game will run on a 6800 card and will be maxed out (Dx9) on a 7800GTX. I have no doubt that my 90-dollar 7600GT will be able to play GoW at an equal detail as is found on 360. If not, then it will be pretty damn close and more than acceptable.

I do agree with you, however, Gears is problably one of the best looking games out there. I am more worried about how they will port the controls over and whether or not it will be Vista-only.

How can the 7600 GT beat the 360 graphically? That sounds so riduculous, I don't even know what to say to you. You're reminding me of that guy who was saying his computer was high end and could run oblivion on max. Turned out to have 7300 LE:?

Well heres some proof With the Game Prey Heres a Mid range Pc With a Gfx Card = to a Geforce 6600

First Pic is the 360 and the second is PC

Xbox 360 Versus Mid-Spec PC Comparison

Keeper Fortress

360

PC :P

Now tell me that the 360 is so much or equal to the PC how come it cant handle a Doom 3 Engine made back in 2004 on high setting with textures/detail.

wasnt that game made in the early days for the 360. dont think it used the 360's potential to its fullest at that time :P

"dont think it used the 360's potential to its fullest at that time" Ive heard that type quote many times but they know the limits of what they can and cant do before the system was released and games. But the thing that gets me most is that 360 fans rant and rave at the graphics and say that its the best. But When even Microsoft and 360 fans said how powerful and better it wasthan PC when it released and after, this madesomeupset/ormade people laughbecause they lied/tried to convice people when they seen the PC counterparts for gamesand seen the differences like Cod2,Prey,Oblivion and FEAR.

"dont think it used the 360's potential to its fullest at that time" Ive heard that type quote many times but they know the limits of what they can and cant do before the system was released and games.04dcarraher

I'm not sure how this works exactly, but don't console graphics usually get better as the console gets older? Maybe the developers find better ways to utilize the console or something.

And NO to herrick - consoles DO NOT get better as they get older, more so when a NEW console is released. PC's are forever upgrading to keep in check with the latest advancements.anandram

My question was poorly worded. I didn't mean consoles themselves getting better, but the utilization of the hardware. I thought that's what these people are getting at when they say that the 360's full potential wasn't tapped when Prey was made for it. If this isn't the case & developers already know all there is to know about using the 360, then I don't think we'd see better looking games for the 360 but I'm sure we will.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Like some have said, textures textures textures....and resolution. Call me crazy, but even on a high-def TV (1080p or whatever it is) console games just dont look as good as my PC does with 90-dollar 7600GT.

As for antialiasing, I just dont like how consoles go about doing it. It just doesnt look right, or atleast what I am used to on PC. Instead of actually getting rid of the jaggies, it looks (to me) as if there is a light smearing of vaseline on every edge of something. Just look at Battlefield: Modern Combat if you want a good example. Gears wasnt as obvious as Modern Combat, but the effect was still there. Such has been my experience at least.

And I gotta be honest, the appearance is the last thing on my mind. WHen I was busy blasting the baddies and stuff, I didnt exactly stop and smell the roses. Gears might have sold a lot of copies off the bat because it is the "latest and greatest" concerning technology, but it is a great game for one reason: gameplay. Hell, I would have been happy if it used an older game engine and still had the same gameplay.

Of course, my whole opinion towards graphics could be changed when I get my 8800GTS in the mail :twisted: Chances are I will turn into a graphics nut :?

dnuggs40

Gonna have to disagree with ya here MrB. Some of the best graphics for games I have seen has been on my Xbox 360. Fight Night Round 3 is particularly impressive, match that with my 56" 1080p and it is quite simply AMAZING. GoW also looks just simply amazing on my TV. Forza 2 and it's car models are just breath taking, and the graphics for that new Ace Combat game are also just flat out great. I can garuntee the 360 has more graphics horse power then your 7600GT.

But I do agree GoW will look better on the PC. They are adding higher-res textures (I mean, they should, it's been a year since release). Though I do not believe the 360 is not capable of more either. Obviously the games the 360 releases over the next couple years will continue to push the graphical envelope (as will the PC).