How does gears PC look better than 360?

[QUOTE="anandram"]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.Herrick

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.

I still remember the days when i thought that Metal Gear Solid 2 on the ps2 was one of the best looking ever, and it cant get any better than this. I was wrong. Silent Hill 3 came out a couple of years later and was even more gorgeous than MGS2. Same thing also with another thing which was on the 360. I thought perfect dark was freaking gorgeous, but when Gears came out...oh well, you all know better. I was floored when i played the six hours straight the first time.

Consoles dont get better, but devs always find a way to utilise the console's power. I know we'll see even better looking games than Gears in the future. And lets hope this happens to the PS3 too.

PCs, get better, not just every year, but almost every six months!

[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.

Dude, in the end it all comes down to the developer and time. The further we go into the next generation the more advanced consoles dev kits are and the more excperienced the developers get with those dev kits. Now I'm not arguing how consoles are better, oh heavens no, but just to mereley point out that your point doesn't really prove much. For instance, Gears of War is the finest looking game released to date and it only uses 90% of the first core of the 360s CPU. So think about it. A few years from now console owners will have even better looking games on their hands due to the fact that when time passes by the technology within those consoles become more familiar in the hands of developers thus resulting in even better looking games with better perfomance. But in the end the PC always comes on top :P

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][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 :?

demonik_360

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).

I wouldn't say there was a lot of framerate issues. I encountered maybe a couple of instances of slight stuttering, but I see this in PC gaming as well (and I have a kick arse system).

Also, I am sure they pushed the 360 hard, but I know that over the next few years the games that come out for the 360 will only look better. I have had consoles since the NES, and this is the case with all of them. As the developers get better at programming for the console and utilizing it's resources better, the games will continue to look better.

Anyways, I am not claiming a 360 is a stronger machine then a PC, obviously a PC has way more potential. But claiming a 7600GT has equal (or more) capabilities is a bit silly.

"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."

Yes Herrick, this is usually the case. With every console I have ever owned, the games released get better over time. It's called game generation for a system. The first generation of games released for a console are never that great, but by 3rd generation they start releasing very impressive titles. Though by the 4th or 5th generation consoles pretty much platue and reach it's max potential. If anybody thinks Gears of War will be the most graphically impressive title to hit the Xbox 360 they are mistaken.

[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.

unreal engine 3 is rated to run on geforce 6 series cards.

[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.

WARxSnake

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.

unreal engine 3 is rated to run on geforce 6 series cards.

Sure run...but at good resolutions and high settings? I think not. Just becuase a game is supposed to run a card, does not mean it will do it well.

[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.

WARxSnake

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.

unreal engine 3 is rated to run on geforce 6 series cards.

Maybe I should rephrase. I am sure the game will play on some 6 series cards but not at high settings. I am sure the recommended specs will be the 7800GTX or higher or maybe even an 8 series card. I also think it will depend a lot on CPU so dual core and up will be recommended.

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

[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.

turaaggeli

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.

Dude, in the end it all comes down to the developer and time. The further we go into the next generation the more advanced consoles dev kits are and the more excperienced the developers get with those dev kits. Now I'm not arguing how consoles are better, oh heavens no, but just to mereley point out that your point doesn't really prove much. For instance, Gears of War is the finest looking game released to date and it only uses 90% of the first core of the 360s CPU. So think about it. A few years from now console owners will have even better looking games on their hands due to the fact that when time passes by the technology within those consoles become more familiar in the hands of developers thus resulting in even better looking games with better perfomance. But in the end the PC always comes on top :P

The cpu's really only handle phyics,number crunching = more smoother gameplay and a alot of effects that wont slow it down. But the 360's gpu will never change they will opitimze better yea but textures wont get much better with only 256 ram and a 256 mb video etheir. Also Ive heard that GoW pushed the 360 almost max on its gpu and memory. So Consoles are limited they can do so much. But my point really about the Prey proof was that even if the 360 was fully opitmized with Prey that the textures wouldnt change a whole lot.

Where I live here there are alot of 360 fans and they know PC has the most games, better graphics compared to the console counterparts, and is better to play FPS's and RTS's On Pc. and a few had meupgrade or make them a gaming PC for them and all they knew was consoles were the best til they met me :P and showed them what a PC can do and they were in awww.