Black Ops plays @ 1,024 x 600 on consoles compared to 2560x1600 on PC

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

And this is news since...when? :?

A GTX 580 is nearly double the cost of my Xbox 360. I'll enjoy playing the game on my Xbox 360, thanks.

By the way, I know how little it costs to build a PC that can outperform the Xbox 360 and PS3. I just don't care.

Iantheone

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

And this is news since...when? :?

A GTX 580 is nearly double the cost of my Xbox 360. I'll enjoy playing the game on my Xbox 360, thanks.

By the way, I know how little it costs to build a PC that can outperform the Xbox 360 and PS3. I just don't care.

Sandvichman

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="Iantheone"] Because being ignorant is better than the truth Iantheone

To the dude who posted all those pics.

Sweet ****ing God,they look good.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="Iantheone"] Because being ignorant is better than the truth Iantheone

Meh the old $450 PC that outperforms a $300 console argument always is based on ideal conditions and lots more hassle (not to mention it is significantly more expensive). Some people dont have ideal conditions or want to deal with that hassle. PC gaming just isnt for everyone.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"] How is it being ignorant when he acknowladges it? markinthedark

Meh the old $450 PC that outperforms a $300 console argument always is based on ideal conditions and lots more hassle (not to mention it is significantly more expensive). Some people dont have ideal conditions or want to deal with that hassle. PC gaming just isnt for everyone.

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

And this is news since...when? :?

A GTX 580 is nearly double the cost of my Xbox 360. I'll enjoy playing the game on my Xbox 360, thanks.

By the way, I know how little it costs to build a PC that can outperform the Xbox 360 and PS3. I just don't care.

Iantheone

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Cause he cares that a GPU can cost almost double a 360, but doesnt care that a PC that is more powerful than a 360 can be built with the same money. Iantheone

Meh the old $450 PC that outperforms a $300 console argument always is based on ideal conditions and lots more hassle (not to mention it is significantly more expensive). Some people dont have ideal conditions or want to deal with that hassle. PC gaming just isnt for everyone.

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Cause he cares that a GPU can cost almost double a 360, but doesnt care that a PC that is more powerful than a 360 can be built with the same money. Iantheone

Meh the old $450 PC that outperforms a $300 console argument always is based on ideal conditions and lots more hassle (not to mention it is significantly more expensive). Some people dont have ideal conditions or want to deal with that hassle. PC gaming just isnt for everyone.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

And this is news since...when? :?

A GTX 580 is nearly double the cost of my Xbox 360. I'll enjoy playing the game on my Xbox 360, thanks.

By the way, I know how little it costs to build a PC that can outperform the Xbox 360 and PS3. I just don't care.

The_Game21x

I see why I don't associate myself with any PC gamers on this site you know we all know what a gaming rig can do yet you still need reassurance on a daily basis, why it's beyond me.

PC gamers are holding themselves back, if Shogun 2 sells 10 million copies... i can guarantee you devs will see the market for high end pc games and crank more out. So do your part and buy 100 copies and stop blaming the consoles :P

markinthedark

I see why I don't associate myself with any PC gamers on this site you know we all know what a gaming rig can do yet you still need reassurance on a daily basis, why it's beyond me.

OmegaTau

[QUOTE="Assassin_87"]

The hardware inside current generation consoles is way behind what computers are reaching right now. That's undeniable. However, some people just prefer the console experience (cheap, simple in many ways, and fairly hassle free with limited customization and great optimization), or would rather not deal with the sometimes-complex process of putting together and maintaining their own stable and reliable gaming rig. And pre-built rigs? Not even going to go into that.

Jermone123

I get what your saying, but building and maintaining my gaming rig is part of the hobby and what makes PC gaming so much fun :D

And here I thought gaming was when you play games. I guess when you don't have many games to play you can always go back and play the "building and maintaining" game. By the way, is that any fun? I don't see any reviews for it, perhaps you can direct me to one?

OP could have done much better if it wasn't for the exaggerated 2560x1600 reference.

1920x1200 would have been more than suitable, hell 1680x1050 or 1440x900 would have still made the point.

if you have a 1000$ monitor and a good video card sure

2500x1600, eh? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Link me to a monitor that can actually support such a resolution please.xsubtownerx

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

[QUOTE="Jermone123"]

[QUOTE="AmayaPapaya"]

i thought we all new the PC version would be better technically?

6matt6

Yea, but I did not realize that consoles were THAT behind. I mean damn dude that is bad. That is complete ownage. I am sorry. Its just the truth

You mean 5 to 6 year? There is nothing there 7 to 8 years old regardless the game isnt optimized for consoles its made for pc's and its also a buggy mess, its hardly a benchmark for what consoles can do.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]2500x1600, eh? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Link me to a monitor that can actually support such a resolution please.ferret-gamer

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

lol, thats ridiculous. You would either need to turn your head constantly just to see different areas of the screen or sit 5 feet back.... in which case you would need the eyesight of a hawk to be able to notice that level of detail. Like all things resolution has a point of diminishing returns.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]2500x1600, eh? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Link me to a monitor that can actually support such a resolution please.markinthedark

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

lol, thats ridiculous. You would either need to turn your head constantly just to see different areas of the screen or sit 5 feet back.... in which case you would need the eyesight of a hawk to be able to notice that level of detail.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]2500x1600, eh? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Link me to a monitor that can actually support such a resolution please.markinthedark

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

lol, thats ridiculous. You would either need to turn your head constantly just to see different areas of the screen or sit 5 feet back.... in which case you would need the eyesight of a hawk to be able to notice that level of detail. Like all things resolution has a point of diminishing returns.

1300$ just for the monitor ouch

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

ferret-gamer

lol, thats ridiculous. You would either need to turn your head constantly just to see different areas of the screen or sit 5 feet back.... in which case you would need the eyesight of a hawk to be able to notice that level of detail.

i dunno man... you should load up paint and have a friend change a single pixel to black and see if you can spot it from your normal gaming distance. I feel like that res is just overkill.... even with my glasses on giving me better than 20/20 vision i dont feel the need to have higher resolution than my 22" 1680x1050 monitor can display. And i dont want to go bigger because i would need to move back more to make sure everything is still clear in my field of vision.

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]2500x1600, eh? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Link me to a monitor that can actually support such a resolution please.ferret-gamer

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

EDIT: Crappy monitor for gaming though. *looks at specs*

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]2500x1600, eh? That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. Link me to a monitor that can actually support such a resolution please.xsubtownerx

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

EDIT: Crappy monitor for gaming though. *looks at specs*

yeah 8 ms lag and only 1000 to 1 contrast pretty bad specs other then the res

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260024

dontshackzmii

EDIT: Crappy monitor for gaming though. *looks at specs*

yeah 8 ms lag and only 1000 to 1 contrast pretty bad specs other then the res

yea seems to be a monitor meant for someone more into editing computer graphics or movies or something. I still think that resolution is major overkill for gaming.... thats my story and im sticking to it.

Black Ops is 60 FPS on consoles as well. Regardless... It's pixels you're talking about. It isn't that big of a deal. It's an advantage, but not one to tout like it's an amazing 1-up on consoles.enterawesome

Actually on consoles it runs lower than 60fps a lot of the time.

i dunno man... you should load up paint and have a friend change a single pixel to black and see if you can spot it from your normal gaming distance. I feel like that res is just overkill.... even with my glasses on giving me better than 20/20 vision i dont feel the need to have higher resolution than my 22" 1680x1050 monitor can display. And i dont want to go bigger because i would need to move back more to make sure everything is still clear in my field of vision.

markinthedark

I can easily notice a single black pixel on a monitor that is 24in and 1920x1080.

It's not that hard to see it is quite annoying if it's in the middle of the screen.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"][QUOTE="Sandvichman"] How is it being ignorant when he acknowladges it? markinthedark

Meh the old $450 PC that outperforms a $300 console argument always is based on ideal conditions and lots more hassle (not to mention it is significantly more expensive). Some people dont have ideal conditions or want to deal with that hassle. PC gaming just isnt for everyone.

What do you mean by ideal conditions?

Anyone who lives in Canada or the US can build a cheap PC that is not much more expensive than a 300USD PS3 or 360 and is around 3 times the power.

It also does much more than play videos games.

I could use my friend as an example. He lives in Australia where console games cost around 90AUD.

So Consoles are way too expensive for him. In his viewpoint The console argument is always based on ideal conditions.

Well, for the first point, take a look at the PC vs console images of COD MW2below:

PC

Consoles (360)

There is very little difference

Anastasia1997

The second screenshot you used is from the PC.

There was quite a big difference when switching from the console and PC versions of CoD games.

.

Also resolution can make a big difference.

.

You go from this

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

To this.

.

I don't think consoles need an update for the next 5 years. :)

An ATI X1900 (Xbox360)and Nvidia 7800GT (PS3) is enough for this generation especially when developers are just getting the hang of making good games for the platform3

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

i dunno man... you should load up paint and have a friend change a single pixel to black and see if you can spot it from your normal gaming distance. I feel like that res is just overkill.... even with my glasses on giving me better than 20/20 vision i dont feel the need to have higher resolution than my 22" 1680x1050 monitor can display. And i dont want to go bigger because i would need to move back more to make sure everything is still clear in my field of vision.

Hakkai007

I can easily notice a single black pixel on a monitor that is 24in and 1920x1080.

It's not that hard to see it is quite annoying if it's in the middle of the screen.

comparing a GTX 580 to consoles is like comparing the Wright Brothers Plane to a SR-71 Blackbird. Nonstop-Madness

So what would it be? KZ2 aginst crysis? Crysis wins hands down. KZ2 is just a corridor shooter. Not even close to what crysis is.

Jermone123

There's no doubt that Crysis is more technically demanding, but I just didn't see it pay off in-game. It was a good shooter (good enough that I'll be picking up the sequel), but nothing more.

[QUOTE="Jermone123"] So what would it be? KZ2 aginst crysis? Crysis wins hands down. KZ2 is just a corridor shooter. Not even close to what crysis is.

lowe0

There's no doubt that Crysis is more technically demanding, but I just didn't see it pay off in-game. It was a good shooter (good enough that I'll be picking up the sequel), but nothing more.

Bro you can not post pics as comparisons. You are not going to be able to tell the difference in a picture.

Jermone123

The bottom screenshot is from PC I think.

[QUOTE="Jermone123"]

Bro you can not post pics as comparisons. You are not going to be able to tell the difference in a picture.

Hakkai007

The bottom screenshot is from PC I think.

They both are, the person posting them was attempting to pull a fast one on people.ferret-gamer

I know the top one was. I was just pointing out that the bottom one was also from PC.

Well I certainly noticed a difference. Consoles games do have occasional "wow" moments, but they are almost always scripted events or backgrounds. The difference with Crysis is that you actually see it in gameplay.Iantheone

For example, play out the fight after the radar station in the second level - it's always the same. The shore is mined to funnel you to the bridge, blowing the gas station is a pointless fireworks show, the enemies will always man the turrets even after you've sniped the last 6 people to try to man the exact same turret, and in the end, you always go in and mop up the two buildings in the same order (don't get them backwards, or you'll break the objective scripting). It's not the only part, either: the 3rd level from the rope bridge to the dig site plays out the same way (albeit with a helicopter blowing the bridge in place of you blowing the gas station) and some of the last levels are pretty much on rails (moving down an ice trench from one heat source to the next, a vehicle escort, and a pretty meh flight sequence).

I'm not saying Crysis isn't doing things differently from scripted shooters. I'm saying that the end results don't really seem all that different, and therefore, why go to the extra trouble?