If my Nvidia 560ti is so much more powerful than a 360 or PS3

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

With fixed hardware you can always push a bit more.

Try getting a community high-resolution texture pack or get more graphics pushing games such as Just Cause 2, Crysis, Metro 2033, Shattered Horizon, Shogun 2: Total War, ArmA II or even Battlefield Badcompany 2.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Maybe it's because you only have Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War? Try getting Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, or another game that actually uses your card's advantages.Kokuro_Kun

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Maybe it's because you only have Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War? Try getting Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, or another game that actually uses your card's advantages.Kokuro_Kun

believe it or not, graphics revolve around the consoles.

heck, in 1999 i had a PC that can run GTA 3: Vice City but since the PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube still were not on sale, i was stuck with PS1/N64/Saturn graphics.

no matter how awesome your PC is today, your graphics will be stuck with console ones.

i was pplaying NBA Live 2002 on the PC at 1080p back then, but no matter how much AA and resolution you apply to the game, it still looked like a game from the PS2 era (which it was). textures were still bland no matter how much you tinker with settings.

not just that, but with everything else. a 2003 high-end PC can definitely run graphics better than PS2. in 2003 you can have a system that has an Nvidia Geforce 4 that has 256MB of VRAM, a intel P4 at 3.0+ GHz, 2GBs of RAM, etc.

but no matter how much VRAM and RAM by PC had, the animations still were PS2, the AI were still PS2, movements still like PS2. you know what i mean? with 2GB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM anyone could easily achieve animations and AI from PS3/360 games.

believe it or not, graphics revolve around the consoles.

heck, in 1999 i had a PC that can run GTA 3: Vice City but since the PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube still were not on sale, i was stuck with PS1/N64/Saturn graphics.

no matter how awesome your PC is today, your graphics will be stuck with console ones.

rawr89

How does that apply to PC exclusive games?

And Dreamcast was on sale in 1999 (1998 in Japan even).

This pretty much explain your problem

Do console gamers even try when they bash the PC?

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

believe it or not, graphics revolve around the consoles.

heck, in 1999 i had a PC that can run GTA 3: Vice City but since the PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube still were not on sale, i was stuck with PS1/N64/Saturn graphics.

no matter how awesome your PC is today, your graphics will be stuck with console ones.

nameless12345

How does that apply to PC exclusive games?

And Dreamcast was on sale in 1999 (1998 in Japan even).

as ive said, i had a PC that was capable of running Vice City (a PS2 game), but since PS2 still wasn't around that time, i was playing something like Soul Reaver on the PC which was a PS1 game. see what i mean?

i bet, if i had a Pc with a quad-core i7 at 3GHZ, a Crossfire'd 6970, with 4GBs of RAM, etc. i can run a PS4/Xbox 720 game in terms of AI, fluidity of animation, etc. but even if your rig can do it (memory isn't an issue, so is harddrive, so is graphics card, so is the processor), then how come all the games being released only perform as good as the consoles?

that's like having a 2004 PC playing something like Assassin's Creed. your Pc can already do it in 2004, but you had to wait for 3 more years to play something like AC. in 2004, you were stuck playing games like San Andreas. and believe me, SA and AC had different AI, different animations, etc. you get what i mean??

you get a 2004 high-end gaming rig like no other, yet you're stuck playing San Andreas even if it can play a next-gen game like AC. it's because games, in general, revolve around consoles. graphics, everything.

right now, PC specs are so impressive that PC is gens ahead of consoles. but how come we won't see amazing games until next-gen? see?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

believe it or not, graphics revolve around the consoles.

heck, in 1999 i had a PC that can run GTA 3: Vice City but since the PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube still were not on sale, i was stuck with PS1/N64/Saturn graphics.

no matter how awesome your PC is today, your graphics will be stuck with console ones.

rawr89

How does that apply to PC exclusive games?

And Dreamcast was on sale in 1999 (1998 in Japan even).

as ive said, i had a PC that was capable of running Vice City (a PS2 game), but since PS2 still wasn't around that time, i was playing something like Soul Reaver on the PC which was a PS1 game. see what i mean?

i bet, if i had a Pc with a quad-core i7 at 3GHZ, a Crossfire'd 6970, with 4GBs of RAM, etc. i can run a PS4/Xbox 720 game in terms of AI, fluidity of animation, etc. but even if your rig can do it (memory isn't an issue, so is harddrive, so is graphics card, so is the processor), then how come all the games being released only perform as good as the consoles?

that's like having a 2004 PC playing something like Assassin's Creed. your Pc can already do it in 2004, but you had to wait for 3 more years to play something like AC. in 2004, you were stuck playing games like San Andreas. and believe me, SA and AC had different AI, different animations, etc. you get what i mean??

Ok as he asked. What does this **** have to do with PC exclusives? Go try and max Metro 2033, Shogun 2, STALKER CoP, and I bet you won't be griping about your PC not getting enough workout.

millerlight89

even if i max all those, will the enemy AI in Metro 2033 react differently because i have much more RAM and VRAM? no.

will animations from Shogun 2 look that much better than Uncharted 2? no.

see what i mean?

next gen we will probably see AI and animations on a more advanced level...and your high-end PC today can probably run it. but you're stuck with this gen.

that's because games, in general, go with the console flow.

Yeah why in the world console ports be so much differen on PC ? They do have better resolutions, AA, and some effects for example Modern Warfare looks like crap on PS3 and on PC it actually looks good. If you want to check out good graphics play Crysis & Warhead, Metro 2033 , Arma 2 and OA, Just Cause 2, Shogun 2 or Empire Total War, Bad Company 2 in Directx 10 looks awesome ! There is alot more games i havent listed these are the ones that i just remmembered.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

Ok as he asked. What does this **** have to do with PC exclusives? Go try and max Metro 2033, Shogun 2, STALKER CoP, and I bet you won't be griping about your PC not getting enough workout.

rawr89

even if i max all those, will the enemy AI in Metro 2033 react differently because i have much more RAM and VRAM? no.

will animations from Shogun 2 look that much better than Uncharted 2? no.

see what i mean?

next gen we will probably see AI and animations on a more advanced level...and your high-end PC today can probably run it. but you're stuck with this gen.

that's because games, in general, go with the console flow.

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

Ok as he asked. What does this **** have to do with PC exclusives? Go try and max Metro 2033, Shogun 2, STALKER CoP, and I bet you won't be griping about your PC not getting enough workout.

DragonfireXZ95

even if i max all those, will the enemy AI in Metro 2033 react differently because i have much more RAM and VRAM? no.

will animations from Shogun 2 look that much better than Uncharted 2? no.

see what i mean?

next gen we will probably see AI and animations on a more advanced level...and your high-end PC today can probably run it. but you're stuck with this gen.

that's because games, in general, go with the console flow.

that was his point.

EDIT: never mind lol

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="rawr89"]

believe it or not, graphics revolve around the consoles.

heck, in 1999 i had a PC that can run GTA 3: Vice City but since the PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube still were not on sale, i was stuck with PS1/N64/Saturn graphics.

no matter how awesome your PC is today, your graphics will be stuck with console ones.

rawr89

How does that apply to PC exclusive games?

And Dreamcast was on sale in 1999 (1998 in Japan even).

as ive said, i had a PC that was capable of running Vice City (a PS2 game), but since PS2 still wasn't around that time, i was playing something like Soul Reaver on the PC which was a PS1 game. see what i mean?

i bet, if i had a Pc with a quad-core i7 at 3GHZ, a Crossfire'd 6970, with 4GBs of RAM, etc. i can run a PS4/Xbox 720 game in terms of AI, fluidity of animation, etc. but even if your rig can do it (memory isn't an issue, so is harddrive, so is graphics card, so is the processor), then how come all the games being released only perform as good as the consoles?

that's like having a 2004 PC playing something like Assassin's Creed. your Pc can already do it in 2004, but you had to wait for 3 more years to play something like AC. in 2004, you were stuck playing games like San Andreas. and believe me, SA and AC had different AI, different animations, etc. you get what i mean??

you get a 2004 high-end gaming rig like no other, yet you're stuck playing San Andreas even if it can play a next-gen game like AC. it's because games, in general, revolve around consoles. graphics, everything.

right now, PC specs are so impressive that PC is gens ahead of consoles. but how come we won't see amazing games until next-gen? see?

You make little sense.

1. You had Quake 3 in 1999 on the PC which looked better than the Dreamcast and PS2 versions

2. There already are PC games that look much better than current console games (see Crysis, Metro 2033, ect.)

3. Doom 3 was overkill for 2004 PCs

4. Again, this only applys to console centric games. PC exclusive games are not limited by console capabilites.

5. Because most people don't have cutting edge PCs

A 560Ti has roughly 4 to 5 times the horsepower of the GPUs in the PS3 and Xbox 360. An 8800gt is over twice as powerful as the GPU in the PS3, and nearly twice as strong as that in the X360.

First of all- The consoles are running these games at 720p or below. They are also generally limited to 30fps at best. A GPU like the 560 Ti can run a good console port like ME2 at well over 60fps at 1080p with AA cranked up. Not to mention that the texture are much cleaner on the PC.

Terrible post.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

Ok as he asked. What does this **** have to do with PC exclusives? Go try and max Metro 2033, Shogun 2, STALKER CoP, and I bet you won't be griping about your PC not getting enough workout.

rawr89

even if i max all those, will the enemy AI in Metro 2033 react differently because i have much more RAM and VRAM? no.

will animations from Shogun 2 look that much better than Uncharted 2? no.

see what i mean?

next gen we will probably see AI and animations on a more advanced level...and your high-end PC today can probably run it. but you're stuck with this gen.

that's because games, in general, go with the console flow.

If the enemy AI in Metro 2033 and the animations in Shogun 2 aren't impressive that's simply the devs' fault.

Try Batman Arkham Asylum or Resident Evil 5. Both are good at best on consoles, but both are phenomenal at max settings on the PC.

Gears of War looks quite a bit better on PC.. and it actually runs above 30FPS so yeah.. bad example. Same for ME2 it will run at more than 60FPS with your card unlike the console versions.. that's how your GPU is x2 powerful as your console.

[QUOTE="millerlight89"]

Ok as he asked. What does this **** have to do with PC exclusives? Go try and max Metro 2033, Shogun 2, STALKER CoP, and I bet you won't be griping about your PC not getting enough workout.

rawr89

even if i max all those, will the enemy AI in Metro 2033 react differently because i have much more RAM and VRAM? no.

will animations from Shogun 2 look that much better than Uncharted 2? no.

If you knew anything about PC gaming you'd know that the AI in games like Crysis is far ahead of any AI in any game on consoles... and Shogun 2's animations are better than Uncharted 2 because the PC hardware can handle it, it's not like they are magically stuck at UC2 level. There's no way the PS3 could do what Shogun 2 does on that big a scale. Maybe the animations in UC2 are just as good, but Shogun 2 has those animations x1,000 all being processed simultaneously. That's where the PC shows that it's ahead of consoles.

And yeah games do go with the console flow... except for, you know, games like Shogun 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which do things no console can do in regards to either control scheme or available power...

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Maybe it's because you only have Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War? Try getting Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, or another game that actually uses your card's advantages.Kokuro_Kun

But can it run Crysis?

Everything can run Crysis 2.

But can it run Crysis?

Everything can run Crysis 2.

BygByron3

I see what you did there

:P

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

Kokuro_Kun

The games you play are multiplatform...and as multiplatform usually goes, its going to be catered largely around the weakest systems : consoles. Thats why you are not going to see night and day differences...although you still have a pretty noticeable differences from resolutions and AA alone.

Certain multiplatform games that are designed around PC do look significantly superior than its console versions, Metro 2033 comes to mind.

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

Kokuro_Kun

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

Kokuro_Kun

Get DMC 4, and start the DX 10 version...Capcom optimized DMC 4 for both DX 10 and 64-bit Windows.

In fact, the graphics look so good (even GS said that in their review), that it is a model showing Square what they could have done with Final Fantasy on the PC, if they had only tried.:o

Those are console ports. The game's assets were designed for consoles. It's not like a PC can magic up higher resolution textures, higher polygon counts, etc. I also hope you enjoy a eye-straining, brain fryingly low 30FPS and blur filtering that is standard. As much as I like console games, I literally have to prepare myself for the horrible frame rates.

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

Kokuro_Kun

This pretty much explain your problem

aroxx_ab

Looks like someone is in need of a decent monitor.

Yeah, try some of those exclusives if you want the blown-away effect.

Being able to game on the PC is more of a convenience thing for me really. Can play a few games and not have to get off the computer (yay for me). My first port that I played with was Bioshock. Looks really good on the computer, but then I play it on the PS3 expecting it to look and play like garbage, and much to my surprise the PS3 version looks and plays great. I didn't feel like I was getting a watered down experience at all.

No need to be disappointed. Try some of those exclusives people keep suggesting, and also think of playing console games on your PC as a convenience--you don't have to get off your computer!

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

Kokuro_Kun

dude, the 560ti is probably at least four times the power of the gpu in the 360 and ps3. even my ancient 260gtx is at least twice the gpu power compared to the hd twins

many games are made on consoles, then ported to the pc. once in a while a pc game comes out and takes advantage of pc hardware, go play them if you want to test out your pc.

I dont see how my 560ti, which is probably close to being twice as powerful as the GPU in the 360 is barely able to out perform 360 games. The biggest thing i get is AA and resolutions but overall games dont look much better on the PC, even with the extra hardware i got.

Maybe its just the games i own but as of right now i own Dead Space, Mass Effect and Gears of War on PC and 360. Yet my PC version isn't all that much better looking?

Is it that developers only move graphics up the scale when a new console cycle comes around or what? I dont understand the PC love when developers aren't giving me much of it.

Kokuro_Kun

i dont know what cpu you have, but try metro2033 and crysis with ccc mod they look jaw dropping at 1080p on my 560, dirt 2 also is nice

Playing games like Crysis (with the natural mod) at 1080p on very high settings and getting a consistent 40 - 50 fps blows away any console game I've ever seen and played by such a large margin that there's really no comparison. And I say this as a gamer that loves consoles more than the PC (though that might change in the near future).

Try Batman Arkham Asylum or Resident Evil 5. Both are good at best on consoles, but both are phenomenal at max settings on the PC.

oldkingallant

believe it or not, graphics revolve around the consoles.

heck, in 1999 i had a PC that can run GTA 3: Vice City but since the PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube still were not on sale, i was stuck with PS1/N64/Saturn graphics.

no matter how awesome your PC is today, your graphics will be stuck with console ones.

i was pplaying NBA Live 2002 on the PC at 1080p back then, but no matter how much AA and resolution you apply to the game, it still looked like a game from the PS2 era (which it was). textures were still bland no matter how much you tinker with settings.

not just that, but with everything else. a 2003 high-end PC can definitely run graphics better than PS2. in 2003 you can have a system that has an Nvidia Geforce 4 that has 256MB of VRAM, a intel P4 at 3.0+ GHz, 2GBs of RAM, etc.

but no matter how much VRAM and RAM by PC had, the animations still were PS2, the AI were still PS2, movements still like PS2. you know what i mean? with 2GB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM anyone could easily achieve animations and AI from PS3/360 games.

rawr89

That's because you forgot to add mods to your argument. Without mods, sure, the games will still look better thanks to more options, AA, higher rez. Mods are a PC feature though, fundamentaly.

The mods are actually the tools that permit a game, any game, to use the PC's hardware to it's full capabilities. If you want to see 2 - 3 times generations ahead, you need to use mods, otherwise you wont see such a dramatic difference. And yes, there are pontetial mods for AI also.

There are mods for anything.