Consoles have finally caught up to the PC!

[QUOTE="VideoGameRosado"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

[QUOTE="VideoGameRosado"]you PC gamers exxagerate to the 10th degree! jesus. Look, I have a great gaming PC. dual 8800GTS 640, intel quad core 3.2, and 2 gig ram. Now, my PC isn't "godly" but it sure can run Crysis nice and smooth, and trust me, PC games aren't THAT far ahead like you people claim to be. Oh, don't worry, PC games have much more antilising, smoother edges, and more of a better overall look, but that "overall" look isn't "HUGE" You guys make it seem as if Consoles graphics look like Nintendo DS, and PC graphics are crysis. Not that big. I have assassins creed on PC, Gears, Spore, Crysis, boshock, etc. Those games, especially the multiplatform games, don't have a "noticble" difference unless you look closely. You can't deny the fact that Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gears of war 2, Gran Turismo 5, and more can't compete with PC games, EXCLUDING crysis. Don't be mad because console gamers only have to spend as little as $200 for a next gen system that can COMPETE with a $1,000+ pc game system. Case closed.wado-karate

I will like to see, CoH and Medieval 2 Total War done on a console.

Of course they can be done. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. but at the same time, there's limitations since you're mentioning a RTS. An RTS is quite difficult to pull off on consoles due to controller, but contoller aside, of course it can be done. What can CoH/Total war do, that PS3/360 can't do? And if there are certain things that can't be done, it's nothing game changing/noticible. And yes, I played both games, other than large scale battles, and good graphics for an RTS, those games don't impress me. Let's talk about FPS/Action/shooter games like the TC brought up. Killzone 2/Gears of war 2 are quite simple, the greatest looking consoles games out. Lets, include uncharted while we're at it too.Those 3 games, can of course be done easily on PC. However, There's no doubt that they can compete with top PC games. Killzone 2/Gears 2/uncharted/MGS4 can compete on PC. Show me a PC game, besides Crysis and RTS games, that CAN'T be done on a console, and state your reasons why. This doesn't go directly to you, but to everyone.

*sigh* You say we can't bring up Crysis and RTS games so to be far, you can't bring up Killzone 2, Gears of War 2, and MGS4 since you seem to be hiding behind those.

With that aside, the original Far Cry still has graphics that can match some current-gen console games.

Taking out crysis is fair, but taking my games, isn't. Just putting in what can be done on both systems. Crysis CAN'T be done on consoles, but killzone2/gears 2/ mgs4/ etc CAN be done on PC. so it makes sense...really.

I'd have to agree with the topic creator, Yes *Crysis* graphics Are superior to console games. But are they godly or as I've seen posted *atleast 2 generations ahead of consoles* Nope, not even close. Huge environments, destructibility, high details on character faces, scenery etc, yes it does have. But again, are they CG quality with absolutely NO imperfections, not even so much as a single *jaggie* perhaps a hint of clipping,etc. No the graphics aren't quite that level.

To set the record straight, my pc is a windows vista, 3 gig, 640hdd with a *phenom processor* as far as the graphics card is concerned, it isn't much as i have done that windows experience index . the grade i got on my card wasn't too up there. i'm not a pc gamer, never have been, but i have seen many on-line videos,screen shots, reviews, posts, forums etc about Crysis and again, it's Not two generations ahead of xbox 360 or ps3, it Is superior yes, but not night and day, sorry nope.

What about 2, 3 or 4 years from now? That will change yes, but as it stands right Now today, it's just simply not. What this really comes down too is *my truck/car is faster, more powerful then yours yadda yadda* my point, just like with pc,consoles. Everyone wants to think or believe they made a decent investment, i mean even the Wii isn't cheap really, people complain about a gallon of gas and the Wii is $249.99 and the cheapest 360 is still $199.99

When you buy a PS3 or a 360 Elite, that's still pretty expensive then there's 60 dollar games, extra controllers a hdtv etc. As for pc upgrades to graphics cards, monitors, sound cards etc, so no matter what you own you want to feel like you have a nice investment and not feel like you have a terribly outdated, underpowered paperweight multi-hundred dollar system. So in closing it Does come down to largely Taste, opinion and such. This is of course My opinion too and as easily as anyone else i could be wrong or right.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

[QUOTE="VideoGameRosado"]you PC gamers exxagerate to the 10th degree! jesus. Look, I have a great gaming PC. dual 8800GTS 640, intel quad core 3.2, and 2 gig ram. Now, my PC isn't "godly" but it sure can run Crysis nice and smooth, and trust me, PC games aren't THAT far ahead like you people claim to be. Oh, don't worry, PC games have much more antilising, smoother edges, and more of a better overall look, but that "overall" look isn't "HUGE" You guys make it seem as if Consoles graphics look like Nintendo DS, and PC graphics are crysis. Not that big. I have assassins creed on PC, Gears, Spore, Crysis, boshock, etc. Those games, especially the multiplatform games, don't have a "noticble" difference unless you look closely. You can't deny the fact that Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gears of war 2, Gran Turismo 5, and more can't compete with PC games, EXCLUDING crysis. Don't be mad because console gamers only have to spend as little as $200 for a next gen system that can COMPETE with a $1,000+ pc game system. Case closed.VideoGameRosado

I will like to see, CoH and Medieval 2 Total War done on a console.

Of course they can be done. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. but at the same time, there's limitations since you're mentioning a RTS. An RTS is quite difficult to pull off on consoles due to controller, but contoller aside, of course it can be done. What can CoH/Total war do, that PS3/360 can't do? And if there are certain things that can't be done, it's nothing game changing/noticible. And yes, I played both games, other than large scale battles, and good graphics for an RTS, those games don't impress me. Let's talk about FPS/Action/shooter games like the TC brought up. Killzone 2/Gears of war 2 are quite simple, the greatest looking consoles games out. Lets, include uncharted while we're at it too.Those 3 games, can of course be done easily on PC. However, There's no doubt that they can compete with top PC games. Killzone 2/Gears 2/uncharted/MGS4 can compete on PC. Show me a PC game, besides Crysis and RTS games, that CAN'T be done on a console, and state your reasons why. This doesn't go directly to you, but to everyone.

You cannot ignore these games since they're trend-setting. Expect more games of this type. Imagine a game like GTA4 only with a larger area (say adding an equivalent to Staten Island or perhaps the southern counties) and capable of managing events taking place all over the map at the same time--events which can influence distant targets--you'll recall that this was one of Lair's fundamental failings, precisely because of RAM limitations. Also, it's hard to have both big maps and online at the same time because dynamic content loading doesn't work well online--the entire map can be populated by interactive elements so therefore must be in memory in order for those interactive elements to work.

bla bla bla I don't really thing it's worth arguing this stupied topic but the thing is it only take a 8600gt to run pc game like the consoles run them ie on medium settings in 600p. (720p if your lucky)

mass effect, gears, cod4 etc all look considerly better on pc than consoles and run in sub hd. gears 2 on x360 is still trying to catch up to gears one on pc. as for farcry the console version doesn't look as good and will probably lack any real physics to make it apear to look close to the pc version

[QUOTE="M337ING"][QUOTE="Ultra-Fatality"]

[QUOTE="6matt6"]These games look fantastic but they're no where near PC quality.Ultra-Fatality

Give me a PC game which looks better apart from Crysis.

Empire Total War.

Cannot be compared to these games as it is not a shooter and is zoomed out.

Same is true for World in conflict.

Give me a shooter which is out that looks better than these games apart from Crysis.

well the fact is wic has more going on and even if you zoom right in it still looks better than those games which is very impressive for a rts. stalker clear sky looks better, as does gears on pc maxed, same goes for mass effect again looks much better on pc, cod4 pc looks way better than on console and easily as good as those console games, just admit it pc games look better, and why are there still very few consoles games that have farcry yes 2004's farcry level physics?

think of it this way, if killzone 2 and gears came out for pc and you were not allowed to turn the resolution up past 720p every single pc user would say the graphics suck compared to other pc games. and it's only true. that's why i cant stand playing gta4 and cod4 on my ps3 because the resolution is set so low it's like im playing on laptop pc.TheMistique

This.

You can hardly claim consoles have "caught up" in terms of visuals when games on them are usually running at sub-720p resolutions and still having framerate issues.

wait look at this first then tell me if u r right or not :roll: project offset

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/188382.html

/ thread

Before you bash me. Read what I have got to say.

First of all, it seems like todays consoles are more powerful than the consoles of last generation for their time. I think this is due to the fact that today graphics are considered just as important as gameplay, while that was not true for the past. I do know that Crysis is still the best looking game around. But I do think Killzone 2 and Gears of war 2 are examples of PC quality graphics, yes you heard me right. PC quality. Hermits, you cannot deny the fact that if Killzone 2 was released on the PC tomorrow, it would look way above average for a PC game! Also, lets not forget Far Cry 2, which looks the same on all three platforms (PC, Xbox 360 and PS3) and still manages to look mighty impressive, not Crysis quality but still above average!

Now, just incase you were living under a rock this past year. Here are videos of Killzone 2 and Gears of war 2. Before you judge, watch them and then comment.

Killzone 2: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/39764.html

GeOW 2: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36240.html

Killzone 2 and GeOW 2 look even better when you actually play them. I downloaded the KZ2 trailer on my PS3 and it looks way better than it does on GameTrailers.

Now for those Hermits who question my topic by claiming that their GPU's are superior to the Xbox 360 and PS3's GPU's I tell you that may be true, however consoles are much easier to optimise for, PC games have to be optimised for many many GPU's and so devs dont have enough time to optimise them thoroughly for specific PC GPU's. I did not say that Killzone 2 and GeOW 2 look better than Crysis. But they do look good, even compared to PC games.

Ultra-Fatality

This really is one of my biggest problems with SW. Consolites who still honestly believe consoles match PC's graphically.

Let me ask you people this, Have you even ever seen games running on a high spec PC? Exlusives or multiplats?

Don't make me laugh about GeoW2 or Killzone 2 looking like PC quality graphics. IF these games play at 1080p, thats 1920x1080 or above, IF these games play with 4-16x Anti Aliasing, IF these games play with more 8-16x Anisotropic filtering and IF these games have big draw distances that are not obscured by horrible blurring then YES, they are close to PC games. They would still however need the texture resolution raising a little. This is how PC games are. All you consolites who think 1080p,AA and AF don't make a difference are ignorant to just how good games CAN look.

Console games are a blurry mess compared to PC. I play my PC on the same 1080p tv as my PS3 and PS3 looks a complete joke if you switch channels.

Go away. play some PC games on a good HDTV or even better a good monitor, You will never spout this utter rubbish again.

i feel a few CoH screenshots are required.

[QUOTE="M337ING"][QUOTE="Ultra-Fatality"]

[QUOTE="6matt6"]These games look fantastic but they're no where near PC quality.6matt6

Give me a PC game which looks better apart from Crysis.

Empire Total War.

STALKER: clear sky.

Stalker: clear sky does not look as graphically good as KZ2 and GEOW 2. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/37115.html

KZ2 and GeOW 2 look better. Hermits there is no denying it.

This really is one of my biggest problems with SW. Consolites who still honestly believe consoles match PC's graphically.

Let me ask you people this, Have you even ever seen games running on a high spec PC? Exlusives or multiplats?

Don't make me laugh about GeoW2 or Killzone 2 looking like PC quality graphics. IF these games play at 1080p, thats 1920x1080 or above, IF these games play with 4-16x Anti Aliasing, IF these games play with more 8-16x Anisotropic filtering and IF these games have big draw distances that are not obscured by horrible blurring then YES, they are close to PC games. They would still however need the texture resolution raising a little. This is how PC games are. All you consolites who think 1080p,AA and AF don't make a difference are ignorant to just how good games CAN look.

Console games are a blurry mess compared to PC. I play my PC on the same 1080p tv as my PS3 and PS3 looks a complete joke if you switch channels.

Go away. play some PC games on a good HDTV or even better a good monitor, You will never spout this utter rubbish again.

i feel a few CoH screenshots are required.

Frozzik

Yeah yeah but far from most PC gamers can keep up to upgrade their PC all time so it is able to run all games in 1920x1080 with 60fps+ . Doubt you even can do Crysis with that settings today.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for consoles to catch up to PC.

And no TC, farcry dose not look teh same on all three platforms, some graphics cards out today are stronger than all 3 consoles combined.

Believe me man, they aint

Farcry 2 is not the same on all platforms graphically...its been confirmed that the console versions are running the game at medium settings.cobrax75

Proof please ? What i heard from some interview was that the PS3 version has only a decreased resolution THATS ALL ABOUT IT !

[QUOTE="6matt6"][QUOTE="M337ING"][QUOTE="Ultra-Fatality"]

[QUOTE="6matt6"]These games look fantastic but they're no where near PC quality.Ultra-Fatality

Give me a PC game which looks better apart from Crysis.

Empire Total War.

STALKER: clear sky.

Stalker: clear sky does not look as graphically good as KZ2 and GEOW 2. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/37115.html

KZ2 and GeOW 2 look better. Hermits there is no denying it.

Stalker has much larger levels than those linear shooters you mentioned. Screenshots dont do Stalker justice. The textures have a very realistic look. The lighting and shadows are actually way ahead of any console game.

A linear shooter designed for high end pc's would destroy consoles and even Crysis in the graphics dept. If Doom 3 can be maxed on a 6800gt then imagine what a gtx280 could do? Too bad Doom 4 and all the other linear shooters will be designed around the consoles.

On the plus side we get a constant 60fps and a sharper, cleaner look in all the multiplatform games.

Stalker: clear sky does not look as graphically good as KZ2 and GEOW 2. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/37115.html

KZ2 and GeOW 2 look better. Hermits there is no denying it.

Ultra-Fatality

youve got to be kidding me.. nothing on any console looks as good as crysis does.

Sorry but Crysis >>

[QUOTE="Ultra-Fatality"][QUOTE="6matt6"][QUOTE="M337ING"][QUOTE="Ultra-Fatality"]

[QUOTE="6matt6"]These games look fantastic but they're no where near PC quality.Cranler

Give me a PC game which looks better apart from Crysis.

Empire Total War.

STALKER: clear sky.

Stalker: clear sky does not look as graphically good as KZ2 and GEOW 2. http://www.gametrailers.com/player/37115.html

KZ2 and GeOW 2 look better. Hermits there is no denying it.

Stalker has much larger levels than those linear shooters you mentioned. Screenshots dont do Stalker justice. The textures have a very realistic look. The lighting and shadows are actually way ahead of any console game.

A linear shooter designed for high end pc's would destroy consoles and even Crysis in the graphics dept. If Doom 3 can be maxed on a 6800gt then imagine what a gtx280 could do? Too bad Doom 4 and all the other linear shooters will be designed around the consoles.

On the plus side we get a constant 60fps and a sharper, cleaner look in all the multiplatform games.

Stalker SoC / Stalker CS

1. Higher res textures
2. Higher res bump mapping
3. Better HDR (Stalker has day and night cycles) and longer HDR draw distances
4. Larger overall draw distances
5. The game is typically displayed at a much higher resolution
6. Better AA and AF
7. Higher FPS

Killzone 2 or GeoW 2 cannot possibly hope to win in any catagory lol.

[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]

[QUOTE="VideoGameRosado"]you PC gamers exxagerate to the 10th degree! jesus. Look, I have a great gaming PC. dual 8800GTS 640, intel quad core 3.2, and 2 gig ram. Now, my PC isn't "godly" but it sure can run Crysis nice and smooth, and trust me, PC games aren't THAT far ahead like you people claim to be. Oh, don't worry, PC games have much more antilising, smoother edges, and more of a better overall look, but that "overall" look isn't "HUGE" You guys make it seem as if Consoles graphics look like Nintendo DS, and PC graphics are crysis. Not that big. I have assassins creed on PC, Gears, Spore, Crysis, boshock, etc. Those games, especially the multiplatform games, don't have a "noticble" difference unless you look closely. You can't deny the fact that Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Gears of war 2, Gran Turismo 5, and more can't compete with PC games, EXCLUDING crysis. Don't be mad because console gamers only have to spend as little as $200 for a next gen system that can COMPETE with a $1,000+ pc game system. Case closed.VideoGameRosado

I will like to see, CoH and Medieval 2 Total War done on a console.

Of course they can be done. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. but at the same time, there's limitations since you're mentioning a RTS. An RTS is quite difficult to pull off on consoles due to controller, but contoller aside, of course it can be done. What can CoH/Total war do, that PS3/360 can't do? And if there are certain things that can't be done, it's nothing game changing/noticible. And yes, I played both games, other than large scale battles, and good graphics for an RTS, those games don't impress me. Let's talk about FPS/Action/shooter games like the TC brought up. Killzone 2/Gears of war 2 are quite simple, the greatest looking consoles games out. Lets, include uncharted while we're at it too.Those 3 games, can of course be done easily on PC. However, There's no doubt that they can compete with top PC games. Killzone 2/Gears 2/uncharted/MGS4 can compete on PC. Show me a PC game, besides Crysis and RTS games, that CAN'T be done on a console, and state your reasons why. This doesn't go directly to you, but to everyone.

M2TW 40000 soldiers at screen....at 2k polygones each...(max settings)....HD textures....add the huge cities and enviroment....and you get a roasted console...

But a console can never pass a PC for two reasons. One, we have mods. Two, a mouse and keyboard are always better than a controller, always.

wado-karate

Yeah, I'd like to see you playing games like Street Fighter or Fifa Soccer with mouse and keyboard.

As a hardcore FPS gamer I have to say if killzone 2 gets anything less than a 9... im going to make endless threads in the PS3 forums.

God... I see these trailers for it and I get nothing simply because I can see through its pretty disguise. Its a shallow FPS, run and gun to this checkpoit then to the next... there are no vehicles, weapon customisations and everything you'd expect from a FPS from 2006+.

As to consoles finaly catching up... are you ignoring Crysis or something?, becuause UE3 is nothing compared to CE2 or that "motion blur 3.0 to hide the muddy textures and jaggies" of an engine that Killzone 2 is running off.

[QUOTE="M337ING"][QUOTE="Ultra-Fatality"]

[QUOTE="6matt6"]These games look fantastic but they're no where near PC quality.Ultra-Fatality

Give me a PC game which looks better apart from Crysis.

Empire Total War.

Cannot be compared to these games as it is not a shooter and is zoomed out.

Same is true for World in conflict.

Give me a shooter which is out that looks better than these games apart from Crysis.

Show me a PC game, besides Crysis and RTS games, that CAN'T be done on a console, and state your reasons why. This doesn't go directly to you, but to everyone.

VideoGameRosado

There are quite a few PC games that wouldn't work on consoles, because of either 1. Design or 2. Technicalities.

Design - Civilisation - result - Civ Revolution. The complex nature of Civ 4 would not go down with a console audience, or so it seems, thus Civ Rev was streamlined - at the cost of game design depth, for the audience (its by no means a bad game).

Technicalities - STALKER - way too much happening in the background - extremely complex design. Even so design wise it wouldn't work either - the game is very complex, and i imagine a dedicated console audience would not have the patience with it. Such transitions has shown so (Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint).

Difference is any console game can be ported to PC. No question. Problem is particular console games suit consoles better. i.e Guitar Hero, Ninja Gaiden, Dead Rising, Ratchet & Clank ect. Pick up and play action games, that suit the layback nature of the systems. Hence why games designed with consoles in mind - ala Halo feel better on its respective system, and is so different to titles developed specifically for PC.

Hardware wise its not even worth comparing really. Console hardware is simply terribly outdated. Console gamers shouldent be surprised, even if they bought their systems at launch it was never high end 'cutting edge' hardware. Each gen console hardware gets eclipsed very quickly - though this gen PC hardware has been very cheap per performance, so its shown how dated console hardware is - even compared to cheap low end budget hardware - quite strongly.

Yeah, you bring up a good point. Framerate is an issue console gamers suffer. However, when put the right amount of effort, it shouldn't be a problem.

VideoGameRosado

A console developer has to find a balance in the hardware between technicals and design, within the very limited constraints (devs like Kojima have expressed this before).

A game like Sup Com or GTA IV simply cant have more 'effort' put in to make their choppy frame rates better. Its simply the hardware being strained beyond its limits. You can 'work around' the hardware, but that means modifying your design / compromising it to cater to the system, in order to get better performance.

A reverse though is a game like Quake 4 or FEAR -games that run perfectly on very dated gaming PCs, yet are simply poor on the 360 (and Ps3) in comparison. Its just a poor port, and console gamers are unfortunately stuck with it.
A PC example is Lost Planet - not a great port to PC at all - difference is as hardware improves and gets cheaper, it doesn't start to matter at all, as it can deal with the higher hardware step, without worrying about the ports quality, or it can recieve updates that can do hefty work to its poperties (games like STALKER and Crysis has gotten massive optimisation improvements through patches).

think of it this way, if killzone 2 and gears came out for pc and you were not allowed to turn the resolution up past 720p every single pc user would say the graphics suck compared to other pc games. and it's only true. that's why i cant stand playing gta4 and cod4 on my ps3 because the resolution is set so low it's like im playing on laptop pc.TheMistique

I dont mind the lower resolution, it isnt rly noticable when u r sitting on ur couch 2,5m away from my plasma. What does bother me are the loading times and unstable framerate. I stopped playing GTA4 (am at the bankmission) and am now waiting for the PC version.

Crysis and 8800GT came out about one year after PS3 and and produced level of graphics the PS3 will propably never reach, despite being the most powerful and most expensive console ever created.

Consoles can never "catch up" with PC, simply because PC is upgradable and consoles are not. It's like a drag race between 2 identical cars, with the other car(console) stuck on 1st gear.

[QUOTE="6matt6"]These games look fantastic but they're no where near PC quality.Ultra-Fatality

Give me a PC game which looks better apart from Crysis.

Hmmm Stalker,any multiplatform maxed out,World in Conflict,even older games like Doom 3 and Quake 4 maxed out + modded

Crysis and 8800GT came out about one year after PS3 and and produced level of graphics the PS3 will propably never reach, despite being the most powerful and most expensive console ever created.

Consoles can never "catch up" with PC, simply because PC is upgradable and consoles are not. It's like a drag race between 2 identical cars, with the other car(console) stuck on 1st gear.

mr_mozilla

Add to that, at the time of release the hardware has usually been passed by something better because when given console is still in development and the final specs have been finalised months before release, new cards come out.

A 2004 game:

Try to even bring these pics near x360/ps3 and they will explode...

console will have caught up when they have digital downloads through steam/d2d, dedicated servers for almost all games and videocards that don't explode trying to run crysis.

maybe next gen

This will not end well.no_handlebars

agree..

but i think the pc's potential has yet to be exposed... almost every month, we recieve news of better-than-the-last one video cards, etc... and we dive right in, ending with more news that another one-which-is-better-than-the-last-one is going to be out or is out... the PC going on low profile right now... pretty soon they'll eat us!!!!!!!!!

*disregard the last statement, too korny for you to bash on.

console will have caught up when they have digital downloads through steam/d2d, dedicated servers for almost all games and videocards that don't explode trying to run crysis.

maybe next gen

mephisto_11