Wrong. The power of the ps3 is not greater than a PC Powerhouse. It will never be. 360 perhaps but these are just censored comments in the sense that they are exclusive to ps3 on this game
True PCs are always staying ahead of consoles in terms of what is actually possible, but do they use that power. No. Every few years a PC game comes along to be the real showboat of graphics but on the average console games always look better. To many PC devs know they have technically superior engines to work with so instead of paying attention to artistic detail they just throw some high spec shaders and textures together in a sloppy manner and call it a game.
Back in 04 when Doom3 debuted it was called a graphics power house when in actuality there were games on PS2, xbox, and GC that absolutely blew it out of the water. To me High end PC games are more like an interactive tech demo than anything else. I fear Crysis will be the same. I have to admit Crysis boasts the most amazing in game lighting I have ever seen, but when I went to look at the Crysis vs. MGS4 comparison MGS4 had a much more real world look to it, especially the character models.
So does PC have the technical advantage? Absolutely yes.
Is it ever put to good use? Rarely.
Sorry for the rant but im tired of always hearing the comparison. The only real world advantage to PC gaming is being able to mod out games.Â
treelog187
well here is my rant, I am tired of hearing people who THINK they know what they are talking about. You state that Doom on the PC was "blown out of the water" with ps2 and xbox games? Name ONE? Doom3 on a high-end PC STILL looks good today and would be comparable to Resistance or Far Cry 360 and BLOWS FEAR on PS3 out of the water.
 There are many games that were out on the PC in 04 that were graphical powerhouses. HL2, Far Cry and Doom3. Then came FEAR. There are many games that just looked good too. The PC version of gta:sa looked MUCH better running at 1900 by 1200 than on ps2.Â
Yes consoles are made with the same common denominator so therefore most games run very well and look very good. You also don't need as powerful hardware cmpared to PC's. But don't get fooled into thinking that the ps3 with ALL the optimization in the world will hold a candle to true next-gen PC DX10 games. Most current gen 360 and ps3 games are COMPARABLE to 2004-2005 games (i said most). The CPU is not really that important in gaming despite what you all may think. After a threshold you have seriously diminishing returns. The majority of the work is done by the GPU. DX10 games like Crysis are HUNGRY for a strong GPU and LOTS of memory for their high-res textures.
ONLY on the PC THIS generation will people be running games like Oblivion at 2560 by 1200 with 8AA 16AF. You need serious ram and GPU power to do that. The CPU is almost MOOT. You will see NO difference is gaming clarity going from a C2D e6600 to a quad core extreme at 3ghz. Again....there is just a threshold that mitigates much of the performance requirements.
So in a nutshell bud, why don't you actually take fanboy glasses off and post facts instead of making blatent statements like 'ps2 games blew doom3 on pc out of the water"...thats system wars talk and even here...most wont pick up what crap you are laying down. peace.
and finally to end MY rant, to the person claiming he is a 'programmer" well you forget that the ps3 lacks any significant cache and is a very simple in-order operation design. There really is only ONE core and spe's that are highly specialized. A quad core is extremely more versatile and more powerful than the ps3 setup.Â
No I am not a fanboy; I am playing my ps3 most, followed by my PC then my 360. But I speak da truth. peace.
Log in to comment