A lot of PC gamers over-exagerate the level of graphics in many pc games

For example...someone on this very forum once told me that PC games are several generations ahead of consoles in terms of visuals. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought a generation (in terms of visuals) was like form PS2/XBOX/GC to PS3/360 level graphics. Yes I understand that PC games do look better than console games but I have yet to see a single PC game that even looks 1 whole generation better than current gen consoles. For example..the gap from the best looking games from last gen to the best looking games from this gen is a lot bigger than the gap between current gen console graphics and PC graphics.

I dunno man. Little things can make a big difference with PC games. Even the sloppiest of console ports will look a lot nicer with a higher res and proper AA.

I don't know about you guys but it gets pretty annoying when Hermits state the obvious over and over... and over again. Especially when there a console discussion and they bring up the PC out of no where...:roll:

I'm playing the witcher 2 right now, and it's beyond increadible. But to say it's several generations above the consoles, is absurd.

I don't know about you guys but it gets pretty annoying when Hermits state the obvious over and over... and over again. Especially when there a console discussion and they bring up the PC out of no where...:roll:

VensInferno

I don't know about several, but at least one, one and a half.

I don't know about you guys but it gets pretty annoying when Hermits state the obvious over and over... and over again. Especially when there a console discussion and they bring up the PC out of no where...:roll:

VensInferno

I don't know about several, but at least one, one and a half.

topgunmv

Crysis, Crysis 2, Arma II, Shogun II and Metro 2033 are a generation ahead of consoles.

Crysis, Crysis 2, Arma II, Shogun II and Metro 2033 are a generation ahead of consoles.

Mozelleple112

Shogun 2 is several generations ahead lol. The level of detail on individual units is unreal.

No they dont. I play games like Crysis, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, BC2, GTAIV and several other games at 1080p with max AA/AF and they blow console graphics out of the water. UC2, Gears and other "Console graphics kings" get trounced by the PC.

Games like Shogun are on a whole different level too.

What about PS3 gamers acting like the Xbox 360 is a nintendo 64 compared to their system.

What about PS3 gamers acting like the Xbox 360 is a nintendo 64 compared to their system.

NoodleFighter

PS3 has the CELL and Sony BS propaganda. PS3 = super computer. 360 = garbage machine. Both PS3 and 360 have garbage graphics.

And a lot of of console gamers over-exaggerate how their exclusives match against Crysis in graphics.

If anything console gamers downplay the PC advantage. Most probably haven't experienced 1920x1080 + 4xMSAA though so you can't really blame them. They look at screenshots/youtube videos and draw conclusions from that :?

I agree. Played through Crysis 2 on extreme and I was a little disappointed by the graphics. It does look better than anything on a console, but not by the margin that some people would lead you to believe.red12355

Yeah I am so suprised at how much better gaming on pc looks, GTA4 looks leaps and bounds better, Metro 2033 has particle effects everywere, TW2 has so much life on screen, Shogun 2 has very high detail across thousands of units and awsome weather effect.

Console gaming seems dumbed down in comparison. I still like my exclusives though on each platform.

Consoles are running at half the resolution, half the frame rate, and lower texture resolutions of even a mid range PC. You can take that however you want. We don't really have 'next gen' consoles to really say how far ahead PC graphics are. Depending on what the next gen console hardware is, PC could be anywhere from a quarter generation ahead to a generation and a half ahead (maybe more, maybe less).

I'm wondering when consoles will test the waters with 20-25FPS in games. I'd wager a lot of people would tolerate the flicker show if the games looked good enough when standing still and blurred enough in motion that the horrible frame rates weren't as apparent (hint: this is already done). If this console generation drags on much longer, I bet we will find out!

[QUOTE="red12355"]I agree. Played through Crysis 2 on extreme and I was a little disappointed by the graphics. It does look better than anything on a console, but not by the margin that some people would lead you to believe.mitu123

I agree. Played through Crysis 2 on extreme and I was a little disappointed by the graphics. It does look better than anything on a console, but not by the margin that some people would lead you to believe.red12355

Why do console fanboys try to downplay PC gaming?[QUOTE="red12355"]I agree. Played through Crysis 2 on extreme and I was a little disappointed by the graphics. It does look better than anything on a console, but not by the margin that some people would lead you to believe.lawlessx

And a lot of of console gamers over-exaggerate how their exclusives match against Crysis in graphics.

mitu123

That reminds me some console fanboy on youtube PMed me this....

Pieeip4775 wrote: Crysis 1 is coming to consoles same with witcher 2. Ever heard of uncharted 3. Lol no pc game thus far have better graphics then that. Or heavy rain or uncharted 2 for that matter. Get a hd 1080p 120hz 3d tv or check your eyes

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

And a lot of of console gamers over-exaggerate how their exclusives match against Crysis in graphics.

NoodleFighter

That reminds me some console fanboy on youtube PMed me this....

Pieeip4775 wrote: Crysis 1 is coming to consoles same with witcher 2. Ever heard of uncharted 3. Lol no pc game thus far have better graphics then that. Or heavy rain or uncharted 2 for that matter. Get a hd 1080p 120hz 3d tv or check your eyes

PC graphics are "better", but only if you happen to have a decent rig, and even then its nothing to get excited about.

An entire gen ahead? Definitely, in no way not. An entire gen ahead is the gap between Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2, not the much, much smaller gap between Killzone and Crysis.

But try telling that to an elitist. Its like full denial mode.

PC's are capable of generating better visuals, but the difference is nowhere on the scale that many pc gamers claim. The general notion is like comparing an nes with a ps1. Sorry, but the difference doesn't have that big of a gap.

Edit: There's also a notion that all games look better. I can understand a visual powerhouse like Crysis, but not every pc game is Crysis.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

What about PS3 gamers acting like the Xbox 360 is a nintendo 64 compared to their system.

Fizzman

PS3 has the CELL

I can't help myself :oops: but...

PC's are capable of generating better visuals, but the difference is nowhere on the scale that many pc gamers claim. The general notion is like comparing an nes with a ps1. Sorry, but the difference doesn't have that big of a gap.TheMoreYouOwn

LOL what... I don't think anything is saying its like comparing a NES to a ps1 but the gap is pretty dang big. That is actually the first time i've ever heard that in System wars lol.... Lets stop exaggerating.. Name names of what "pc gamer" on this board or anywhere else is claiming a 3 generation gap as you suggest? Are people trying to downplay the Pc this much that they have to over exxagerate what they feel PC gamers are saying?

Well if that's true I'll wait a couple generations until I buy a next console. And good for them to hype up their system of choice.

For example...someone on this very forum once told me that PC games are several generations ahead of consoles in terms of visuals. Now maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought a generation (in terms of visuals) was like form PS2/XBOX/GC to PS3/360 level graphics. Yes I understand that PC games do look better than console games but I have yet to see a single PC game that even looks 1 whole generation better than current gen consoles. For example..the gap from the best looking games from last gen to the best looking games from this gen is a lot bigger than the gap between current gen console graphics and PC graphics.

DillonShwing

They do look great. Unbelievable at times if you play current gen consoles. There is a gross exaggeration though, no matter what anybody says. Most of the games use the same geometry, and consoles limit this for the pc. You also need a VERY expensive pc rig to see what they are capable of.

PC's are capable of generating better visuals, but the difference is nowhere on the scale that many pc gamers claim. The general notion is like comparing an nes with a ps1. Sorry, but the difference doesn't have that big of a gap.TheMoreYouOwn

The real advantage is how crisp PC games look with AA/AF, FPS and higher resolutions. It's not that console games look bad, they just look really blurry and undefined in comparison, almost sluggish with the FPS. This coupled with much better textures and effects goes a long way in making PC games more appealing to look at. You can't really slap an arbitrary measurement to this advantage, all I can say is it looks much better than what consoles can produce by a long shot.

I remember how Carmack stated that people may be disappointed with the next-gen because all that extra power will be used for resolution and AA. Who knows, maybe PC is already at a point where early next gen titles will be at in a few years time.

You also need a VERY expensive pc rig to see what they are capable of.

Heirren

No you don't. I run most of my games at max settings. Basically the only exception is Metro 2033 with dx11 tessellation.

I'm rather tempted to post Crysis pictures in here.

Some folks exagerate the differences, but the difference is still worth having I'd say--especially when you're able to play games at 60FPS. ;)

I'm rather tempted to post Crysis pictures in here.

Some folks exagerate the differences, but the difference is still worth having I'd say--especially when you're able to play games at 60FPS. ;)

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

I'm rather tempted to post Crysis pictures in here.

Some folks exagerate the differences, but the difference is still worth having I'd say--especially when you're able to play games at 60FPS. ;)

lawlessx

considering how the current hd consoles are generally considered about = radeon hd 18xx video cards and that was several video card generations ago.

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]

I'm rather tempted to post Crysis pictures in here.

Some folks exagerate the differences, but the difference is still worth having I'd say--especially when you're able to play games at 60FPS. ;)

slarkyslark

Should I show SS's of Shogun, Crysis 2 and the Witcher 2?

Console graphics are OBSOLETE. They are awful. I dont play console's for graphics though. Why would you?

Wii U is being reported to go by dx 10 which doesw look great but that is last gen for pc gamers and by the time we are in mid life span comparisons will be a joke. The other console probably won't be doing much better either.

[QUOTE="TheMoreYouOwn"]PC's are capable of generating better visuals, but the difference is nowhere on the scale that many pc gamers claim. The general notion is like comparing an nes with a ps1. Sorry, but the difference doesn't have that big of a gap.juno84

The only difference between these 2 screens is one is an upscaled 720p 360 shot and the other is a native 1080p computer shot with 4x anti-aliasing (in other words the bare minimum difference you'll get with a port). Those two things alone make a drastic difference.

^ Excellent comparision. Let us not forget the improved frame-rate too. So many games benefit from having a stable 60 FPS.