Has the PC handed the GRAPHICS batton to the playstation 3

Great, another one of these.

I think if Cows want to avoid being associated with this mentality they should criticise this guy as well...

AnnoyedDragon

Yep. Cows are acting like that the cell would blow up the world in everything, or something. They even think that it would overtake the PC in the graphics category. Not gonna happen. PC will always be the real king of graphics. Plus there are a TON of PC games out there that blows both Uncharted 2 & Killzone 2 out of the water.

Jesus, PC fanboys are the worst...I think he makes a good point. No console game may be better in graphics then Crysis yet, but they are getting close and thats where all the innovation is.

Lantern-Cusp

No, PS3 fanboys are.

[QUOTE="Lantern-Cusp"]

Jesus, PC fanboys are the worst...I think he makes a good point. No console game may be better in graphics then Crysis yet, but they are getting close and thats where all the innovation is.

No, PS3 fanboys are.

So no and as times passes differences between pc games and console games graphics wise will get bigger onlyadamosmaki

Yeah, this console generation is going to last longer than usual and the gap between PC and console will keep growing. Unfortunately, most attention is paid to consoles and thus the PC may still get straight-up console ports that waste the potential of the far more powerful cards the PC has now.

With Epic for instance, they won't release Unreal Engine 4 until the next console generation, even though today's PCs could probably handle it. So, we have to twiddle our thumbs and wait for the consoles to catch up. Let's hope that future console ports will take more advantage of PC power, like Dirt 2 with DX11 and also have more PC exclusive games.

Nah..Crysis still is the prettiest action game on the market and ARMA2 has raised the bar for the scale of FPS far beyond anything PS3 could handle. Not to mention PC continues to push forward in other genres, especially strategy. Dawn of War 2, Anno 1404, Cities XL and especially Empire: TW and heads and shoulders above anything PS3 could handle

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="Lantern-Cusp"]

Jesus, PC fanboys are the worst...I think he makes a good point. No console game may be better in graphics then Crysis yet, but they are getting close and thats where all the innovation is.

Cait__Sith

No, PS3 fanboys are.

Indeed they are, such as sales. First, they didn't care about sales, but now that the PS3 has reached $300 along with the slim, they act like that they're invincible. How hypocritical.

Everyone would agree that the PC dominated graphics a few years ago. console didn't come anywhere near the graphics of the PC.

But now I think MOST would agree that the playstation 3 IS where the graphical innovation are taking place NOW. and as dev learn to harness the power of the CELL more and more the bar will be raised further and further.

Games like Uncharted 1 and 2, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, Wipeout HD and Demon's Souls all go to show the potential on offer from the playstation 3, the cell and from devs that are willing to put the time and effort in to learn who to use it.

what are YOUR thoughts on the subject.

dog_dirt

That you confirmed my thoughts on ps3 fanboys being less intelligent than most...

[QUOTE="Cait__Sith"][QUOTE="garland51"]

No, PS3 fanboys are.

garland51

Indeed they are, such as sales. First, they didn't care about sales, but now that the PS3 has reached $300 along with the slim, they act like that they're invincible. How hypocritical.

Basically I always felt a little compassion when the 360 was stomping them into the ground, but now that the PS3 is actually building up momentum and pushing the 360 back they act like they can take onPC suddenly.

lol no, because all the good graphics games on the ps3 are either interactive movies or have the lowest quality gameplay.

There are very few discussions that have both sides of the argument being incorrect, this is a fine example of one of them.

Jesus, PC fanboys are the worst....... I think he makes a good point. No console game may be better in graphics then Crysis yet, but they are getting close and thats where all the innovation is.

Lantern-Cusp

Everyone would agree that the PC dominated graphics a few years ago. console didn't come anywhere near the graphics of the PC.

But now I think MOST would agree that the playstation 3 IS where the graphical innovation are taking place NOW. and as dev learn to harness the power of the CELL more and more the bar will be raised further and further.

Games like Uncharted 1 and 2, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, Wipeout HD and Demon's Souls all go to show the potential on offer from the playstation 3, the cell and from devs that are willing to put the time and effort in to learn who to use it.

what are YOUR thoughts on the subject.

dog_dirt

I have PS3 and KZ2 and Uncharted 2 and my thoughts are that I'm sad because Guerrilla and Naughty are chained because the -GeForce 7800- RSX limitations; I'm sure that they could do a better work programing for PC. You must be joking if you think that 720p x 30 fps games are capable to rival S.T.A.L.K.E.R., ArmA II or Crysis & Warhead in a good gaming PC. Indeed, I must admit that in terms of design WipEOut HD Fury is outstanding; best game in PS Store by far.

Everyone would agree that the PC dominated graphics a few years ago. console didn't come anywhere near the graphics of the PC.

But now I think MOST would agree that the playstation 3 IS where the graphical innovation are taking place NOW. and as dev learn to harness the power of the CELL more and more the bar will be raised further and further.

Games like Uncharted 1 and 2, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, Wipeout HD and Demon's Souls all go to show the potential on offer from the playstation 3, the cell and from devs that are willing to put the time and effort in to learn who to use it.

what are YOUR thoughts on the subject.

dog_dirt

I disagree.

First off. While it is impressive that UC2 and others have managed to push their 4 year hardware as far as they have. Good for them! However if you look at the good looking titles on the PS3, they are pretty much all very limited in a number of ways. They have a very limited number of actors on screen at once, limited draw distance, limited open area. All these limitations are what is allowing these titles to looks as good as they do. Just like both the X360 and the PS3 could display a perfect freeze frame picture, the real challenge in terms of graphics is not just how good you can make a simple scene look. It's also how far you can push the extra variables. And that's where the PC has been moving forward.

Look at a game like Total War: Empire. Not only does it have VERY good graphics.. it has very good graphics with several thousand soldiers on screen at once, each individually drawn, animated and rendered. Look at games like Aion or Age of Conan. decent to good graphics, but with huge open areas compared to for example UC2 and with the potential for 100+ players in different outfits, different character models, different animations all doing different things.

Next take a look at the multi-display functions added to the new ATI card's, look at the tessellation included in DX11, look at nVidias work to allow PC use their video cards as not just video cards but both video and physics cards at the same time.

In other words, yeah UC2 looks great, especially given the age of the hardware. But the true innovation is still on the PC, the consoles are just spending a lot of time and money trying to find out how they can emulate what's already possible on the PC on aging hardware.

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

You picked a video, from TWO years ago, around the time the game was released and TWO years later still say the things you do? You do know most of the stuff that is wrong with games at release, are patched, right?

Nagidar

Maybe the bugs, but thats some serious patching to fix AI like that.

And isn't it nice that console games often have all the stuff worked out BEFORE the release, so constantly downloading patches all the time isn't needed, except in a few rare cases like with Borderlands on the PS3.

Yes, console games have perfect A.I.: Link

No it the PC still has the batton BUT it has been sitting on its ass twidling it since 2007.

Flanker15

Jesus, PC fanboys are the worst....... I think he makes a good point. No console game may be better in graphics then Crysis yet, but they are getting close and thats where all the innovation is.

Lantern-Cusp

pc gamers barely come close to matching crysis's graphics, consoles are about a generation behind in comparison. and how can there be innovation if crysis is the best, meaning whatever the console games do graphically chances are crysis did it. so no he makes no valid point and neither do you.

And isn't it nice that console games often have all the stuff worked out BEFORE the release, so constantly downloading patches all the time isn't needed, except in a few rare cases like with Borderlands on the PS3.

heysharpshooter

back in the day this used to be somewhat true, but now its objectively wrong. almost every game i own from this gen that wasnt on the wii has been patched since release. just the other night i was playing a few older games and honest to god, i think they all had patches.

what ps3 has done to PC is that you dont need a 400 dollar gpu to make impressive graphics, pc devs really dont try to get the most out of a gpu.

No, but i believe that lemmings have handed the delusional baton to the cows though.

Rather then continue to post this kind of nonsense fanboys should just start asking for hermits to post a bunch of Crysis picks. At least then we wouldn't have so many threads going on about how a five year old piece of hardware is comparable to cutting edge tech.

Better yet, mods should just create a thread called best graphics. There would be a single pic of crysis and nobody would be allowed to post in it. Then all these types of threads could be locked with a note telling people to refer to the sticky.

Everyone would agree that the PC dominated graphics a few years ago. console didn't come anywhere near the graphics of the PC.

But now I think MOST would agree that the playstation 3 IS where the graphical innovation are taking place NOW. and as dev learn to harness the power of the CELL more and more the bar will be raised further and further.

Games like Uncharted 1 and 2, Ratchet and Clank, Infamous, Wipeout HD and Demon's Souls all go to show the potential on offer from the playstation 3, the cell and from devs that are willing to put the time and effort in to learn who to use it.

what are YOUR thoughts on the subject.

No matter how much money you spend no matter how much time you spend no matter how optimization you do no matter if you can squeeze every bit of power out of a gimped down 7800gtx that ps3 uses and an in-order 2004 designed Cpu you can never match graphics even on a pc equipped with anything from an 8800 series gpu or better ( 8800gt a rather popular card even nowdays is 2-2,5x times faster than a non gimped 7800gtx let alone the RSX ) Most games on PS3 run at 720p at most with a lot including MW2 at sub par HD resolutions without AA and yet cant manage 60fps\ On the other hand an average gaming pc with something like a 9800gt or 4850 can play games like Dragon age, mirrors edge, race driver grid, MW2 at 1080p with a bit of AA and usually well above 30fps So no and as times passes differences between pc games and console games graphics wise will get bigger onlyadamosmaki

[QUOTE="dog_dirt"]

But now I think MOST would agree that the playstation 3 IS where the graphical innovation are taking place NOW. and as dev learn to harness the power of the CELL more and more the bar will be raised further and further.

do you even know what a processor does? it makes calculations and processes code, thats it. yes, those calculations determine what happens in-game, but the processor does very little to effect graphics.

Where are you guys coming from? Is there a cow hatchery somewhere near by?

Crysis still beats the hell out of anything on the consoles, so no not by far

that you didn't think that much when you made this thread.

heysharpshooter

what ps3 has done to PC is that you dont need a 400 dollar gpu to make impressive graphics, pc devs really dont try to get the most out of a gpu.

ZoomZoom2490

my $150 gpu maxes out crysis at 1680x1050

my 'old' $75 gpu played it on high at 1080p and maxed out every other game at that res.

so ps3 is still behind

[QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

that you didn't think that much when you made this thread.

ColdfireTrilogy

[QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"][QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

that you didn't think that much when you made this thread.

Adrian_Cloud

If you actually believe MGS4 was a better technically visual game then Crysis Warhead, you have issues...

[QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"][QUOTE="heysharpshooter"]

that you didn't think that much when you made this thread.

Adrian_Cloud

'looks' have nothing to do with whether a game has the best graphics. and the only trend i see is idiot journalists and idiot gamers who have no idea what the term graphics refers to.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] same opinionwashd123

'looks' have nothing to do with whether a game has the best graphics. and the only trend i see is idiot journalists and idiot gamers who have no idea what the term graphics refers to.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="ColdfireTrilogy"] same opinionNagidar

If you actually believe MGS4 was a better technically visual game then Crysis Warhead, you have issues...

Calling people idiots, does not win you any points in a debate. People have different opinions and biases, but that doesn't make them idiots. Adrian_Cloud

considering this isnt opinion yeah it does.

graphics refers to everything technical such as texture resolution,lighting,scale and the methods used to create this 'art' it has nothing to do with what you think 'looks' good.

there objective standards in place, either it has the best graphics or it doesnt.

visuals are the looks or artstyle and design on top of the graphics, there is no way to declare the best since theres no objective standard in place.

so misusing a term would make them idiots.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"] You realize Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2 are probably going to win best graphics of the year award as MGS4 did last year. See a trend? If you don't, well there both PS3 games. PC owners boast about having the best multi-platform games, even when its a game like Dragon Age where nothing really stands out. :| PC fps games look better than the rest of console fps games, but as far as other genres go i don't think PC really does anything consoles can't do. GT5, God of War III, The last guardian ,MGS4 andvFFXIII look as good(if not A LOT better) as any racer, hack n slash, puzzle/adventure, stealth,rpg game on PC.Adrian_Cloud

If you actually believe MGS4 was a better technically visual game then Crysis Warhead, you have issues...

From an Artistic standpoint, there is opinion, from a Technical standpoint, there is no opinion, it is a fact Crysis Warhead was the most technically superior game of 2008, GS' award was BS, you should know the difference between Artistic and Technical.

EDIT: Here's an example for you:

My car is faster then the lesser Lancers in Mitsubishi's line-up. (Technical, fact)

I like how the ride feels in the lesser Lancers. (Artistic, opinion)

Dude, honestly if you can't come up with a better argument than saying someone has issues if they don't agree with your opinion, then your absolutely hopeless. There are numerous things that make MGS4 a technical achievement especially in the sound department, its godly still better than a lot of BR movies. So you take your i'm going to criticize someone without actually posting my opinion attitude somewhere else.Adrian_Cloud

sound has nothing to do with graphics and graphics arent a matter of simple opinion

PC fps games look better than the rest of console fps games, but as far as other genres go i don't think PC really does anything consoles can't do. GT5, God of War III, The last guardian ,MGS4 andvFFXIII look as good(if not A LOT better) as any racer, hack n slash, puzzle/adventure, stealth,rpg game on PC.Adrian_Cloud

How about Strategy games?There is still yet to be a game technically superior to CoH on the 360 while even the PS3 may struggle to deliver it's achievement. Unfortunately not many people understand just how advanced games like CoH, SupCom, WiC and E:TW are.

Well considering the graphical capabiliteis if your PC are determined by its components, the PC will always have better graphics than the consoles. As new more powerful hardware comes out the potential of the PC evolves whilst he potential of the consoles remain the same.

Any gaming PC built within the last 2 years (maybe more) has more processing power and much more memory than current-gen consoles. They are more powerful. They can hold larger textures. They can display images at higher resolutions than any console. The PS3 is basically a cheap gaming PC from over 3 years ago.

That said, how anyone can believe that graphics in a current-gen console can surpass a modern gaming PC is beyond me. Anything consoles can do graphically, PCs can do better. It's pretty simple.Engrish_Major

I just LOL'D at the beginning of this topic when the TC said that the almighty powerful cell would be able to surpass even the PC in graphics because of Uncharted 2. Cows believe that the PS3 has more tons of power inside of it when it really doesn't.

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

If you actually believe MGS4 was a better technically visual game then Crysis Warhead, you have issues...

Nagidar

From an Artistic standpoint, there is opinion, from a Technical standpoint, there is no opinion, it is a fact Crysis Warhead was the most technically superior game of 2008, GS' award was BS, you should know the difference between Artistic and Technical.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"] Dude, honestly if you can't come up with a better argument than saying someone has issues if they don't agree with your opinion, then your absolutely hopeless. There are numerous things that make MGS4 a technical achievement especially in the sound department, its godly still better than a lot of BR movies. So you take your i'm going to criticize someone without actually posting my opinion attitude somewhere else.Adrian_Cloud

From an Artistic standpoint, there is opinion, from a Technical standpoint, there is no opinion, it is a fact Crysis Warhead was the most technically superior game of 2008, GS' award was BS, you should know the difference between Artistic and Technical.

From what I understand, it's "Technical Graphics", nothing more and in that department, Crysis Warhead was a mile ahead, maybe GS just didn't want to give the award to the same franchise 2 years in a row.

GS awards weren't BS maybe they had a different perspective than you. PS3 doesn't have a designated sound card, has only 512 ram and yes this game features, bump-mapping, normal mapping, high res character models, depth of field man and a lot more. They put soo much in to this game that its a shame that i wasn't better executed gameplay wise :(. Keep in mind it never dips under 30fps, and through the majority of the game it is at 60fps, there is a crazy amount of stuff going in the game that i don't want to spoil. I really wish Kojipro did some kind of behind the scenes thing of their engine. Anyhow there are two ways to look at things here, MGS4 didn't deserve it because Crysis had more impressive tech but you have to have the tech, or MGS4 did deserve it because it was an impressive game on lower tech.Adrian_Cloud

MGS4 never hit 60fps its locked at 30fps.

and its not a more impressive game from a technical standpoint even if you take the position that creating great tech on low hardware is better. warhead ran at medium high (with post processing on very high), at 720p 30fps on my singlecore system with a x1950pro agp with 256mb of ram. considering from a technical standpoint, even at those settings crysis still was better than MGS4 thats more impressive than MGs4 on a ps3 at 1024x768.