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

[QUOTE="Jermone123"]

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

The bottom screenshot is from PC I think.

No, I found the image on the 360 MW2 image pageAnastasia1997

It doesn't matter.

They have been known to use the same image as the PC version before.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] 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.lowe0

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?

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

Have you seen Black Ops maxed on PC? It's a pretty big difference. :P

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"]No, I found the image on the 360 MW2 image pageHakkai007

It doesn't matter.

They have been known to use the same image as the PC version before.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

The bottom screenshot is from PC I think.

Anastasia1997

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] They both are, the person posting them was attempting to pull a fast one on people.ferret-gamer

To the dude who posted all those pics.

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

Lto_thaG

ha ha yea, I thought the same thing. :D

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

e peeeeeeeeen. Plus its fun to pick on you guys :P

really? i doubt it, i have heard the PC version is awful.

[QUOTE="Jermone123"]

[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.

wootasifwoot

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?

You don't have the requirements to play it. Sucks for you, cuz its a lot of funnnnn:( :P

[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.

I thought the same thing. I am telling you man this monitor was worth every penny! I swear I would even go bigger if there was a bigger monitor in 2560x1600. Believe me. You get use to it. Its so beautiful though. I sit at other computers such as the library and I just shake my head and laugh. a 19 inch seems so puny to me now. 30 inch monitors are definitely the way to go. If you have the money. But like I said it is worth it. My eyes are a foot away from the screen and it is still very comfortable.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] 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.Anastasia1997

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?

What I wanna see is KZ2 on the PC. That would be interesting...

Best models has to go to Crysis. May not be as artistically awesome, but they are better. Animations has to be AC2 imo. KZ2 is nice looking, but other games beat it.Iantheone

I don't know about that... the gun models in Crysis really aren't that much better than most FPSes. It's the enviroments that set it apart.

What I wanna see is KZ2 on the PC. That would be interesting...

Jermone123

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVTdPXO6vY

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Best models has to go to Crysis. May not be as artistically awesome, but they are better. Animations has to be AC2 imo. KZ2 is nice looking, but other games beat it.psn8214

I don't know about that... the gun models in Crysis really aren't that much better than most FPSes. It's the enviroments that set it apart.

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"][QUOTE="lowe0"] That's my point. KZ2, like CoD, Halo, or most other modern shooters, was a set of scripted set pieces. Walk past this line, and these guys will spawn behind the wall and start heading along a prescripted path. However, playing Crysis, I didn't really feel like the game was generating anything unique for me.

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?

Iantheone

Im sorry, but no, crysis has average weapon models...At least for the shotgun weapon model I suppose, but its not good. Also, I suggest you reconsider about AC2, since its animations arent that good, and its quite obviousthat KZ2 and some othertitles have much better animations than AC2

Well, we will see when CRysis 2 comes out. If Crytek actually does what they say they are going to do and maximise both console and PC versions then it will be clear the true difference. I highly doubt this will happen. But it will still be clear as day of the PC superiority in graphics compared to consoles with crysis 2.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] Best models has to go to Crysis. May not be as artistically awesome, but they are better. Animations has to be AC2 imo. KZ2 is nice looking, but other games beat it.Iantheone

I don't know about that... the gun models in Crysis really aren't that much better than most FPSes. It's the enviroments that set it apart.

Sure, the events in KZ2 are scripted just like COD or Halo, but its graphical fidelity is so far ahead of those titles. Plus, KZ2 has the best weapon models, animations, ragdolls, etc of any game, including PC. What I meant is that the CGK's best graphical aspects can easily rival or pass PC' best, but its for some aspects, not generallyAnastasia1997

Metro 2033 has the best gun models.

.

.

.

Crysis character model. Looks pretty good to me :D

If you want to spend thousands of dollars on gaming, then you are right ...

Not all gamers have the luxury to play their games on a super-rig connected to a high-quality monitor.

Still, I kinda wish that there was a "gaming" TV that supports insane resolutions that you wouldn't be able to achieve with consoles.

If you want to spend thousands of dollars on gaming, then you are right ...

zekere

Consoles = 1,024 x 600

PC = 2560x1600 on my monitor

Ouch....

GTX 580 can play Black Ops @ 1280x1024 with an average of 236 FPS. What fps would consoles get at the resolution? Not even 30?? :o

I think it might be time for an update for the consoles. No?

Jermone123

[QUOTE="markinthedark"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

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

Jermone123

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.

I thought the same thing. I am telling you man this monitor was worth every penny! I swear I would even go bigger if there was a bigger monitor in 2560x1600. Believe me. You get use to it. Its so beautiful though. I sit at other computers such as the library and I just shake my head and laugh. a 19 inch seems so puny to me now. 30 inch monitors are definitely the way to go. If you have the money. But like I said it is worth it. My eyes are a foot away from the screen and it is still very comfortable.

I dunno i actually had to buy glasses to play halo reach. My HDTV was too big to the point where i would have to turn my head to see the radar or sit back so far i couldnt make out players in the distance. So i went and got my first eye exam and first pair of glasses (i know, for a video game, im pretty competitive) even though the optometrist said i have functional 20/20 vision without glasses.And this is a low ass res xbox game.

I mean if you are playing a casual single player game having your peripheral vision filled with screen is incredibly immersive... but if im playing in any sort of competitive fashion, i need every inch of the screen to be in focus... cant have something important like a radar sitting off in my peripheral vision. :P

trust me i understand why it can be good for casual gaming, but for competitive gaming... its not good.

If you want to spend thousands of dollars on gaming, then you are right ...

zekere

Those people with computers costing "thousands of dollars" aren't using them for gaming. A 700-1500 dollar is more than enough for gaming, and your 1500 dollar one will last you a long while.

[QUOTE="Anastasia1997"]Sure, the events in KZ2 are scripted just like COD or Halo, but its graphical fidelity is so far ahead of those titles. Plus, KZ2 has the best weapon models, animations, ragdolls, etc of any game, including PC. What I meant is that the CGK's best graphical aspects can easily rival or pass PC' best, but its for some aspects, not generallyHakkai007

Metro 2033 has the best gun models.

.

.

.

That Metro pic needs moar AA :Prpgs_shall_rule

Yah it does but that doesn't matter, the pic was made to show off the gun.

Metro 2033 has the most detailed guns.

[QUOTE="rpgs_shall_rule"]That Metro pic needs moar AA :PHakkai007

Yah it does but that doesn't matter, the pic was made to show off the gun.

Metro 2033 has the most detailed guns.

Most multiplatform games are sub-HD on consoles. Your argument hardly seems fair when the cost of the GTX 580 alone is more than the price of the Xbox 360 and PS3 combined. The fact that newer technology is more powerful than older technology ishardly compelling.king_bobo

Cool Logic never knew the GTX 580 was $1000 dollars.

[QUOTE="king_bobo"]Most multiplatform games are sub-HD on consoles. Your argument hardly seems fair when the cost of the GTX 580 alone is more than the price of the Xbox 360 and PS3 combined. The fact that newer technology is more powerful than older technology ishardly compelling.Ikuto_Tsukiyomi

Cool Logic never knew the GTX 580 was $1000 dollars.

What is this thread about? My 90$ GTX260 can run Black Ops 1920x1200 with 16x AA and full setting @ 85 FPS stable. We already know consoles are ancient hardware and for the poor uneducated people.

Most multiplatform games are sub-HD on consoles. Your argument hardly seems fair when the cost of the GTX 580 alone is more than the price of the Xbox 360 and PS3 combined. The fact that newer technology is more powerful than older technology ishardly compelling.king_bobo

Cool Logic never knew the GTX 580 was $1000 dollars.

[QUOTE="antifanboyftw"][QUOTE="Ikuto_Tsukiyomi"]

Cool Logic never knew the GTX 580 was $1000 dollars.

04dcarraher

When the Xbox 360 released, the fastest video card you could get was a 512 MB 7800 GTX. If I recall, that video card was around $700 at the time. It was at around the same performance level as the Xbox 360's GPU and the Xbox 360 was $400 at that time. To add to that, quad core CPU's were not available at the time.

you know whats funny about these threads, PC elitists like to shove this crap in peoples faces and yet the specs and performance of each the 360 and PS3 is comparible to a gaming PC in 2005. So what does this guy have to say to people with pc's from those years?? i mean really my PC in 2005 couldn't run mass effect or even COD 4 even. Its true you get what you pay for but its not rational to argue or boast your epeen when most people are fine with 30-60 frames and a modest resolution. But yeah fail thread is fail.

Didn't realize Black Ops was such a beautiful masterpiece in terms of visuals. Wait...it isn't. There goes the whole argument.

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

LOL

2500x1600 monitors are exist from 2006

Here is a link with a new monitor that plays farcry2 at 3840x2160
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfHK4P7m4QA


Next time try pay more attention to PC gaming, or do NOT contribute in a pc related thread.

When did everyone stop playing games to complain about how they look ? Goddamn who gives a **** graphic whores are the worst .

[QUOTE="Gauloisess"]

What is this thread about? My 90$ GTX260 can run Black Ops 1920x1200 with 16x AA and full setting @ 85 FPS stable. We already know consoles are ancient hardware and for the poor uneducated people.

VanDammFan

Rest easy knowing that your comment is completely ignorant..

If you ignore the last bit "poor uneducated people" Gauloisess is correct.

The gap between consoles and PC is pretty large graphically.

Just take a look at Oblivion.

I just started the game up and took some screenshots.

Consoles can't come close to this.

.

.

.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="antifanboyftw"] ps3 costs $300. 360 costs $200. GTX 580 costs $520. used amazon.DJP3000

When the Xbox 360 released, the fastest video card you could get was a 512 MB 7800 GTX. If I recall, that video card was around $700 at the time. It was at around the same performance level as the Xbox 360's GPU and the Xbox 360 was $400 at that time. To add to that, quad core CPU's were not available at the time.