First, Gears of war 3 handles far more enemies on the screen; evidence below. http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/16enemies.png And this is simply humanoid meshes, Gears also handles a variety of much larger enemy meshes; evidence below. http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/Horde1.jpg Not only that, but Gears of war 3 uses a far superior lighting system known as "global illumination" along with god beams where light literally bounces of surrounding surfaces which is a far more realistic technique then Uncharted 3 uses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdRZBfslkfw And of course with have facial detail, Gears blows Uncharted 3 away when it comes to this. You'd be inane to claim Uncharted 3 hosts superior details after seeing the pictures posted below. http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/Comparision.png Then there's textures in general, once more; not even a comparison http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/Comparison.jpg You can't forget particle effects. This one doesn't have nearly the difference as other comparisons, though Gears etches Uncharted 3 out of the win. For instance, when you throw a smoke grenade in Gears of war 3 it slowly has accumulation around other objects and blankets them. Uncharted 3s particle effects disarm and are gone within moments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jws7YEmdII --- Weather effects (Gears of war 3) http://s1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/?action=view¤t=Gears2.png --- Gears of war 3 (Fire effects) http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/Gears9.png --- Water effects You could say Gears of war 3 has inferior detail, I disagree. For instance you can actually see blood accumulate on the armored Kantus' spikes when he's near death. A small detail, much like when they raise before he rolls. There quite equal. http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/Untitled.png --- Blood accumulation. http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/Untitled-1.png --- Spikes risen. And there you have it, debate me if you wish. All these pictures were personally taken by me. Oh one more thing, animation. I feel both are equal, and rightfully so. Since both Gears of war 3 and Uncharted 3 use motion capture; though they present different overall styles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUL5kuWlHzE --- Gears of war 3 [Brumak Motion Capture] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnPJQPRCcmE --- Uncharted 3 [General Motion Capture] Tell me if I'm missing any thing so I can clarify my beliefs and add it.
I assume a general portion of system wars does, hence the reason it's called system wars. Edit: Not to mention there's a thread on this particular subject, it's attracted a lot of attention. But lacked detail and reasoning, I gave you reasoning and evidence.
I assume a general portion of system wars does, hence the reason it's called system wars. Oh, you mean the bunch of nerdy fanboys and graphics whores who spend too much time counting pixels and not enough time realizing that the most important part of graphics, artistic direction, boils down to nothing but preference. We can count pixels all day but when it comes down to it the AMOUNT of pixels don't matter, it's what the pixels that ARE there look like that maters. I've seen 16 bit games that look way more pleasing to the eye than a lot of current gen 3D games. Saying game A has technically better graphics than game B is pointless because there's always going to be people out there that still like the looks of game B over game A. Graphics will always be opinion-based. Get over it.
I assume a general portion of system wars does, hence the reason it's called system wars. Oh, you mean the bunch of nerdy fanboys and graphics whores who spend too much time counting pixels and not enough time realizing that the most important part of graphics, artistic direction, boils down to nothing but preference. We can count pixels all day but when it comes down to it the AMOUNT of pixels don't matter, it's what the pixels that ARE there look like that maters. I've seen 16 bit games that look way more pleasing to the eye than a lot of current gen 3D games. Saying game A has technically better graphics than game B is pointless because there's always going to be people out there that still like the looks of game B over game A. Graphics will always be opinion-based. Get over it.
This should be included in every one of these stupid ass comparison topics
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="MrTruthy"] I assume a general portion of system wars does, hence the reason it's called system wars. megadeth1117
Oh, you mean the bunch of nerdy fanboys and graphics whores who spend too much time counting pixels and not enough time realizing that the most important part of graphics, artistic direction, boils down to nothing but preference. We can count pixels all day but when it comes down to it the AMOUNT of pixels don't matter, it's what the pixels that ARE there look like that maters. I've seen 16 bit games that look way more pleasing to the eye than a lot of current gen 3D games. Saying game A has technically better graphics than game B is pointless because there's always going to be people out there that still like the looks of game B over game A. Graphics will always be opinion-based. Get over it.
This should be included in every one of these stupid ass comparison topics
"Oh, you mean the bunch of nerdy fanboys and graphics whores who spend too much time counting pixels and not enough time realizing that the most important part of graphics, artistic direction, boils down to nothing but preference." A game is unable to stand alone with a good art style and not be technically proficient. It's not merely counting pixels, there's numerous aspects and areas we can observe. The reason we compare them is to gain further knowledge personally and entertain are selves. Which is why there's a system wars.
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"] A game is unable to stand alone with a good art style and not be technically proficient. I disagree. And if you feel this way, then why are you discussing 2 games that are WAY more than just "technically proficient"? There's nothing wrong with either of the games technical wise, and this thread proves nothing other than the fact that you have way too much time on your hands. [QUOTE="MrTruthy"] It's not merely counting pixels Yes it is. [QUOTE="MrTruthy"] there's numerous aspects and areas we can observe. The reason we compare them is to gain further knowledge personally and entertain are selves. Which is why there's a system wars. That's entertaining to you? :?
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"][QUOTE="MrTruthy"] A game is unable to stand alone with a good art style and not be technically proficient. I disagree. And if you feel this way, then why are you discussing 2 games that are WAY more than just "technically proficient"? There's nothing wrong with either of the games technical wise, and this thread proves nothing other than the fact that you have way too much time on your hands. [QUOTE="MrTruthy"] It's not merely counting pixels Yes it is. [QUOTE="MrTruthy"] there's numerous aspects and areas we can observe. The reason we compare them is to gain further knowledge personally and entertain are selves. Which is why there's a system wars. That's entertaining to you? :? "I disagree. And if you feel this way, then why are you discussing 2 games that are WAY more than just "technically proficient"? There's nothing wrong with either of the games technical wise, and this thread proves nothing other than the fact that you have way too much time on your hands." I'm discussing merely a single aspect of both games and this happens to be the technical areas of them. When speaking of such, there's really little nothing more to it other then these particular subjects. Unless of course, we skim through the actual code. And yes, it can be entertaining creating a discussion. I mean, you have your opinion; and I respect it. :3
And the fire in Gears of war 3 is compose of spinning textures,the water look like glaze,has no reaction to bullets almost every where,while Uncharted 3 one will even get drake wet,sand that actually stick to drake. Gears 3 characters which include Gears and enemies had less details,that in Gears 1,enemies vanish as soon as you kill them,and many explode in the air so that the engine could render some more. Basically Gears is a game made of trade off,the fact that fire effects are spinning textures which was done last gen on PS2 games to simulate fire pretty much show how big the trade off are,hell the game doesn't even have AA and has tons of jaggies. You can ask here are several poster who saw the video i posted of the spinning textures to simulate fire.
tech doesn't really matter when the games speak for themselves. you can talk all the tech you want, but uncharted 3 still looks better. and also lol at the screens you posted. what a blind fanboy
[QUOTE="tormentos"]And the fire in Gears of war 3 is compose of spinning textures,the water look like glaze,has no reaction to bullets almost every where,while Uncharted 3 one will even get drake wet,sand that actually stick to drake. Gears 3 characters which include Gears and enemies had less details,that in Gears 1,enemies vanish as soon as you kill them,and many explode in the air so that the engine could render some more. Basically Gears is a game made of trade off,the fact that fire effects are spinning textures which was done last gen on PS2 games to simulate fire pretty much show how big the trade off are,hell the game doesn't even have AA and has tons of jaggies. You can ask here are several poster who saw the video i posted of the spinning textures to simulate fire.Dude, no one listens to your sony fanboy drivel. You should either stop posting are create yet another troll account.
[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="tormentos"]And the fire in Gears of war 3 is compose of spinning textures,the water look like glaze,has no reaction to bullets almost every where,while Uncharted 3 one will even get drake wet,sand that actually stick to drake. Gears 3 characters which include Gears and enemies had less details,that in Gears 1,enemies vanish as soon as you kill them,and many explode in the air so that the engine could render some more. Basically Gears is a game made of trade off,the fact that fire effects are spinning textures which was done last gen on PS2 games to simulate fire pretty much show how big the trade off are,hell the game doesn't even have AA and has tons of jaggies. You can ask here are several poster who saw the video i posted of the spinning textures to simulate fire.Dude, no one listens to your sony fanboy drivel. You should either stop posting are create yet another troll account. :lol: i agree with this more than i do the thread
"And the fire in Gears of war 3 is compose of spinning textures,the water look like glaze,has no reaction to bullets almost every where,while Uncharted 3 one will even get drake wet,sand that actually stick to drake." Except, that's what you call a cinematic fire effect. It's not created to look visually pleasing, in fact you're generally not supposed to see it. Hence the reason I posted a more visually acquitted fire effect. In fact, Uncharted 3 uses this fire effect and it's quite prominent in chateau. "Gears 3 characters which include Gears and enemies had less details,that in Gears 1,enemies vanish as soon as you kill them,and many explode in the air so that the engine could render some more." I really have a hard time comprehending what you're stating but had the textures been inferior to Gears of war 1 in Gears of war 3 I'm guaranteeing you it wouldn't be looking nearly as good as it does at the moment. And actually, the enemies don't vanish as soon as you kill them. The mesh vanishes after a set time duration so they don't pile and cause lag. "Basically Gears is a game made of trade off,the fact that fire effects are spinning textures which was done last gen on PS2 games to simulate fire pretty much show how big the trade off are,hell the game doesn't even have AA and has tons of jaggies." Actually, it does have an A.A solution. This is proven via a photo where for a short duration the anti-aliasing breaks on Dom's fingertip. Even then, Gears of war 3 has few jaggies. http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/img016az7u.jpg I suggest you do more research and gain more general knowledge of game development before you post. I don't even think you bothered to read mine. Edit: Do you even posses Gears of war 3? Some of the things you stated made you seem rather distraught regarding the subject and discussion at hand.
[QUOTE="rogelio22"]there is really no reason to argue console graphics anymore they all look subpar! please just stop these threads already! they are annoying!MrTruthy
Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day.
[QUOTE="rogelio22"]there is really no reason to argue console graphics anymore they all look subpar! please just stop these threads already! they are annoying!MrTruthy
Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. yeah uc3 and gears 3 look great for what they are running on 6 year old hardware but they dont even come close to witcher 2, bf3 or crysis 1-2 graphics on pc! after u experiance them type of games maxxed out at 1080p then these silly arguments become pointless... dont u think???
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"][QUOTE="rogelio22"]there is really no reason to argue console graphics anymore they all look subpar! please just stop these threads already! they are annoying!UNcartMe
Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day. Yes, I'd enjoy seeing ND as a PC developer. Of course they'd have to get a bit of practice in. Epic would probably be more acquitted, according to there past PC development statues.
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"][QUOTE="rogelio22"]there is really no reason to argue console graphics anymore they all look subpar! please just stop these threads already! they are annoying!UNcartMe
Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day. who cares how much u pay for it! point is graphics on pc beat consoles 10 times over! just wish this gen would be over already so i can play zelda in 1080p!
And not just Gears of War 3. A lot more than that.
People would be surprised if they knew just how little Uncharted is doing on the technical side of things.
theuncharted34
Granted, perhaps I'm a bit to harsh. ND produced a visual master piece with Uncharted 2, though Uncharted 3 seems a bit un-polished this time around. They should have followed Epic's path and used a 2 1/2 year development time.
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="MrTruthy"] Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day. Yes, I'd enjoy seeing ND as a PC developer. Of course they'd have to get a bit of practice in. Epic would probably be more acquitted, according to there past PC development statues. oh man! after playing the sand level! i was left drooling! what would this be like at 1080p with more horse power?? i cant wait for next gen to see what ND does
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="MrTruthy"] Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day. Yes, I'd enjoy seeing ND as a PC developer. Of course they'd have to get a bit of practice in. Epic would probably be more acquitted, according to there past PC development statues. that would be awesome, but i enjoy nd as a developer more than epic. i mean epic has done a lot for the industry, but nd just does story, graphics, and everything i want in a game right. epic seriously needs some new writers and/or directors. i mean gears doesn't have to be generic just because of the way it plays. i mean imagine gears with an engaging story. that would be truly EPIC
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day.UNcartMe
Yes, I'd enjoy seeing ND as a PC developer. Of course they'd have to get a bit of practice in. Epic would probably be more acquitted, according to there past PC development statues. that would be awesome, but i enjoy nd as a developer more than epic. i mean epic has done a lot for the industry, but nd just does story, graphics, and everything i want in a game right. epic seriously needs some new writers and/or directors. i mean gears doesn't have to be generic just because of the way it plays. i mean imagine gears with an engaging story. that would be truly EPIC The story telling in Gears of war 1, 2 were horrific. Story wise, it's never been bad with the back round plot. Though I actually thought Gears of war 3 possessed exceptional story telling. For instance, I really enjoyed the pulp fiction style. But it also had symbolism and believe it or not three dimensional characters to back it up. A great way to end the series.
[QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="MrTruthy"] Not all console games are technically subpar, considering developer limitations it's amazing are abilities with such old hardware. rogelio22
i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day. who cares how much u pay for it! point is graphics on pc beat consoles 10 times over! just wish this gen would be over already so i can play zelda in 1080p! honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg)
Mr.truth right? Here let me lay it out for you. Truth #1. you never played UC3. Truth #2. The Yemen chase level has more human characters on screen than a couple of Gears3 levels put together. Truth #3. The GI from Beast is baked to hell, it's not the same as SSGI or dynamic radiosity used in BF3 PC version. UC3 also uses baked GI and it's the same method as Gears3's. Now, the rest of UC3's lighting simply puts Gears3's to shame. 1st of all, true HDR lighting in UC3, no contest here. Now that dynamic godray is just a cheap 2d post processing effect in gears3 unlike the true volumetric lighting effect in uc3's, it's also casting volumetric shadows on top of volumetric god rays, which is technically far more advanced than gears3's. Also the deferred lighting in UC3 can output tons more light sources than a gears level any day. Truth #4. The facial animation is FAR more superior in UC3's, for starters the polycount of Drake is more than twice as many as Marcus Pheonix's. try 36k+ vs 15k. More polys allow for more bone joints, better mesh deformation and smoother movement. So try harder son. Truth #5. The effects are simply way ahead in UC3's. The procedural 3d water, fire and sand effects are second to none, so much more complex animation it's not funny. The only advantage Gears3 has is higher res alpha but still too fake in comparison. Truth #6. the textures are more or less equal in resolution but has a lot more variation in UC3, the HDR lighting also makes everything nicer. Truth #7. the animation in UC3 simply owns here, I think everyone with eyes can see that. Now did I mention there's no AA in Gears3? Your arguments are so outdated dude, try to read more in DF and beyond3d before spread fuds.
[QUOTE="MrTruthy"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="MrTruthy"] Yes, I'd enjoy seeing ND as a PC developer. Of course they'd have to get a bit of practice in. Epic would probably be more acquitted, according to there past PC development statues. that would be awesome, but i enjoy nd as a developer more than epic. i mean epic has done a lot for the industry, but nd just does story, graphics, and everything i want in a game right. epic seriously needs some new writers and/or directors. i mean gears doesn't have to be generic just because of the way it plays. i mean imagine gears with an engaging story. that would be truly EPIC The story telling in Gears of war 1, 2 were horrific. Story wise, it's never been bad with the back round plot. Though I actually thought Gears of war 3 possessed exceptional story telling. For instance, I really enjoyed the pulp fiction style. But it also had symbolism and believe it or not three dimensional characters to back it up. A great way to end the series. yea i get you. my biggest gripe with gears 3 is that none of it felt genuine. in my opinion, i felt like epic was trying to hard to have a story and in the end made it quite laughable. i don't think it's fair to say that, but that's how i feel. i also think my thoughts of gears 3 were tainted by the storys of part 1 and 2. imagine Jim Carey in a serious movie....While he may be a good actor and do his role, I would still not be able to 100% believe his performance.
[QUOTE="rogelio22"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]i know! imagine buying a $250 PC with a game that looks as good as UC3. That would be the day.UNcartMe
who cares how much u pay for it! point is graphics on pc beat consoles 10 times over! just wish this gen would be over already so i can play zelda in 1080p! honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg) intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360
[QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="rogelio22"] who cares how much u pay for it! point is graphics on pc beat consoles 10 times over! just wish this gen would be over already so i can play zelda in 1080p! rogelio22
honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg)intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360 LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.
[QUOTE="gpuking"]Mr.truth right? Here let me lay it out for you. Truth #1. you never played UC3. Truth #2. The Yemen chase level has more human characters on screen than a couple of Gears3 levels put together. Truth #3. The GI from Beast is baked to hell, it's not the same as SSGI or dynamic radiosity used in BF3 PC version. UC3 also uses baked GI and it's the same method as Gears3's. Now, the rest of UC3's lighting simply puts Gears3's to shame. 1st of all, true HDR lighting in UC3, no contest here. Now that dynamic godray is just a cheap 2d post processing effect in gears3 unlike the true volumetric lighting effect in uc3's, it's also casting volumetric shadows on top of volumetric god rays, which is technically far more advanced than gears3's. Also the deferred lighting in UC3 can output tons more light sources than a gears level any day. Truth #4. The facial animation is FAR more superior in UC3's, for starters the polycount of Drake is more than twice as many as Marcus Pheonix's. try 36k+ vs 15k. More polys allow for more bone joints, better mesh deformation and smoother movement. So try harder son. Truth #5. The effects are simply way ahead in UC3's. The procedural 3d water, fire and sand effects are second to none, so much more complex animation it's not funny. The only advantage Gears3 has is higher res alpha but still too fake in comparison. Truth #6. the textures are more or less equal in resolution but has a lot more variation in UC3, the HDR lighting also makes everything nicer. Truth #7. the animation in UC3 simply owns here, I think everyone with eyes can see that. Now did I mention there's no AA in Gears3? Your arguments are so outdated dude, try to read more in DF and beyond3d before spread fuds. "Truth #1. you never played UC3." Yes I have, I generally pointed out numerous aspects of the game that most who haven't played it wouldn't be in knowledge of. Truth #2 "The Yemen chase level has more human characters on screen than a couple of Gears3 levels put together." Except, there not performing any action or scripted event. There merely a mesh, much like the environmental. Gears of war 3 performs the same ideal in numerous cut scenes. Truth #3 Baked God rays. Actually, Gears of war 3 isn't using baked God rays. There generally dynamic, this is quite noticeable if you modify the console version via unreal editor and create your own custom mapping. Truth #4. The facial animation is FAR more superior in UC3's, for starters the polycount of Drake is more than twice as many as Marcus Pheonix's. try 36k+ vs 15k. More polys allow for more bone joints, better mesh deformation and smoother movement. So try harder son. That's actually the count from Gears of war 1. And like I said, and proved; both use motion capture. And I quote Epic games during a demo of Gears of war 3... "We have drastically increased the polygon count for are sequel. We don't current have a variable on both counts. Truth #5. The effects are simply way ahead in UC3's. The procedural 3d water, fire and sand effects are second to none, so much more complex animation it's not funny. The only advantage Gears3 has is higher res alpha but still too fake in comparison. If you're speaking of a scripted event, which isn't marvelous coding technical ability in any way. Truth #6. the textures are more or less equal in resolution but has a lot more variation in UC3, the HDR lighting also makes everything nicer. Actually, Gears of war 3 uses numerous ambient areas in general. For instance, take the average MP maps. There's a large difference between Gridlocks ashy dominion and sand bars watery coasts. Truth #7. the animation in UC3 simply owns here, I think everyone with eyes can see that. You mean there have two generally different styles, as I pointed out; both utilize motion capture. "Now did I mention there's no AA in Gears3?" You state there's no A.A, but take for instance this photo where the anti-aliasing malfunctions on Dom's finger-tip. If it's not there, how is it malfunctioning? http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff448/Darkener33/img016az7u.jpg
[QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="rogelio22"] who cares how much u pay for it! point is graphics on pc beat consoles 10 times over! just wish this gen would be over already so i can play zelda in 1080p! rogelio22
honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg) intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360yea, i love steam! most of the prices are amazing! and omg don't get me started on the sales steam has! if only ps3/360 games had sales like that for purchase worthy games
[QUOTE="rogelio22"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg)Calvin079
intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360 LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.im talking about i52500k w/ 570-580 or 6950-6970 thats powerhouse im talking bout! what u talking bout?
[QUOTE="rogelio22"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg)Calvin079
intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360 LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.lol there is no way that is a powerhouse pc. it may be good, but not even close to powerhouse, unless you upgraded it. and secondly ugh at desktops, who has time for those things?
[QUOTE="rogelio22"] intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360UNcartMe
LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.lol there is no way that is a powerhouse pc. it may be good, but not even close to powerhouse, unless you upgraded it. and secondly ugh at desktops, who has time for those things?me :)
[QUOTE="rogelio22"] intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360rogelio22
LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.im talking about i52500k w/ 570-580 or 6950-6970 thats powerhouse im talking bout! what u talking bout? 1 TB HDD, Quad Core 3.20 Ghz, 8GB RAM, 1 GB 5770ATI Radeon
[QUOTE="UNcartMe"][QUOTE="Calvin079"] LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.
rogelio22
lol there is no way that is a powerhouse pc. it may be good, but not even close to powerhouse, unless you upgraded it. and secondly ugh at desktops, who has time for those things?me :) and me
[QUOTE="rogelio22"][QUOTE="Calvin079"] LOL no. I paid 750 for everything; and it was a pre-built lol.
Calvin079
im talking about i52500k w/ 570-580 or 6950-6970 thats powerhouse im talking bout! what u talking bout? 1 TB HDD, Quad Core 3.20 Ghz, 8GB RAM, 1 GB 5770ATI Radeongood deal! but my point stands u wanna build a powerhouse pc with a latest dx11 card and its gonna cost at least a G
[QUOTE="rogelio22"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]honestly, i wish i had a computer that is 10 times over the ps3, but the cost and lack of interesting games(my opinion) would make me feel like i wasted money! And i prefer laptops because desktops just aren't an option for me, considering i don't want to be limited to one spot(slight exaggeration). and we all know how much a super good gaming laptop costs(an arm and a leg)UNcartMe
intial cost of a powerhouse gaming pc is well alot! maybe $1000-$1500 depends! but with the steam, amazon, gamersgate... etc etc... sales you save money in the long run ! ive spent maybe $150 on games and got like maybe 30 games on pc!while the same games cept for exclusives like witcher wouldve costed me over $500 on ps3/360yea, i love steam! most of the prices are amazing! and omg don't get me started on the sales steam has! if only ps3/360 games had sales like that for purchase worthy games Should be, I spent quite a bit on my PC. :3
[QUOTE="rogelio22"][QUOTE="UNcartMe"]lol there is no way that is a powerhouse pc. it may be good, but not even close to powerhouse, unless you upgraded it. and secondly ugh at desktops, who has time for those things?Calvin079
me :) and melol well i find using a desktop limiting, and the cause of major weight gain lol.
Log in to comment