PC vs console graphics - PC always wins?

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="bowlingotter"] !!!! When I first played on the DX2-66, it was the first computer I was on that also had a Sound Blaster sound card, and I played Doom for the first time. Life changed.bowlingotter

My 1st PC was an IBM XT 12mhz :) the 1st game i ever played was wolfenstein 3D and damn that game was amazing for it's time.

Sierra ruled back then. Now they are a mere shadow of the awesomeness they once were. I also loved the Wing Commander games they were awesome back then and still awesome today. I still remember Wing Commander 2 and the speechpack took more space to install then the size of my HD back then :lol:

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Ah yes, Quake 1 had 3D acceleration.

bowlingotter

Quake released with no 3D-acceleration. It wasn't until something like February 1997 when a 3dfx patch was made for it and it became GLQuake. Rendition's Quake patch came about a couple weeks prior to the 3dfx patch.

Unaccelerated Quake is the game that started the whole CPU overclocking craze. Even the best CPUs (the MMX series) could barely do 25 fps at SVGA resolutions. Overclocking the CPU was just enough to push the frame rate into the upper 20's/low 30's which was wonderful at the time.

When I got my Dell Pentium 200 MMX, I thought I would never have to get another PC again. :lol:

The only thing herms rely on is Crysis, at least get another game from your huge library of exclusives.

Sh4nk3r

PC has loads of games other than Crysis, people talk about them but Crysis is just an easy example that everyone here knows.

[QUOTE="bowlingotter"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Quake released with no 3D-acceleration. It wasn't until something like February 1997 when a 3dfx patch was made for it and it became GLQuake. Rendition's Quake patch came about a couple weeks prior to the 3dfx patch.

Unaccelerated Quake is the game that started the whole CPU overclocking craze. Even the best CPUs (the MMX series) could barely do 25 fps at SVGA resolutions. Overclocking the CPU was just enough to push the frame rate into the upper 20's/low 30's which was wonderful at the time.

menes777

When I got my Dell Pentium 200 MMX, I thought I would never have to get another PC again. :lol:

[QUOTE="bowlingotter"][QUOTE="loadedboon"]

My 1st PC was an IBM XT 12mhz :) the 1st game i ever played was wolfenstein 3D and damn that game was amazing for it's time.

loadedboon

Sierra ruled back then. Now they are a mere shadow of the awesomeness they once were. I also loved the Wing Commander games they were awesome back then and still awesome today. I still remember Wing Commander 2 and the speechpack took more space to install then the size of my HD back then :lol:

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="bowlingotter"] Awesome. I don't remember the first computer that was in our house but i only played BASIC games on it. But when we got the 386 SX, that's when I discovered the Sierra Quest games. bowlingotter

Sierra ruled back then. Now they are a mere shadow of the awesomeness they once were. I also loved the Wing Commander games they were awesome back then and still awesome today. I still remember Wing Commander 2 and the speechpack took more space to install then the size of my HD back then :lol:

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

dontshackzmii

And a quick footnote: Metro 2033 and Crysis look equally good. Metro 2033 is much prettier to look at (apart from numerous appaling character models) but if you fx throw a grenade at a bulding in Crysis, the whole thing is torn apart with real time physics while in Metro 2033.... Not so.

Edit: I used to love Quest for Glory and every single Larry Laffer game up to and including 6 (the 4'th actually).

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

dontshackzmii

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Ah yes, Quake 1 had 3D acceleration.

menes777

Quake released with no 3D-acceleration. It wasn't until something like February 1997 when a 3dfx patch was made for it and it became GLQuake. Rendition's Quake patch came about a couple weeks prior to the 3dfx patch.

Unaccelerated Quake is the game that started the whole CPU overclocking craze. Even the best CPUs (the MMX series) could barely do 25 fps at SVGA resolutions. Overclocking the CPU was just enough to push the frame rate into the upper 20's/low 30's which was wonderful at the time.

Using a 3D add on card also helped tip the scales. Using my Monster 3D card I was able to run several of the 3Dfx games without any problem. In fact I don't think that I started to run into problems until that behemoth Ultima IX came out.

Not me. I played GLQuake online for almost all of 1997. I only paused to play MS Close Combat 2: A Bridge Too Far. I only quit GLQuake the following year after I bought 2x 12mb Voodoo2 and SLI'ed them. Then it was on to Quake 2 for me.

At that point, 3D-accelerated SVGA res (640x480 to 1024x768) in almost every game gave the PC a commanding edge. I knew someday the consoles would eventually close the gap. I'm surprised it's taken this long.

Aside from that... PC wins every multiplatform gfx debate. Every single one.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

chaplainDMK

Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?

Not true. Resident Evil 4 looked worse on the PC than on the GameCube. nameless12345

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

I thought the PS1 had the first widescale use 3d-accelerated graphics.

bowlingotter

The Voodoo GPU's say hello.

I think 3dfx came first although Rendition had the first Quake patch which ticked me off at the time since I had a Voodoo. I recall the rivalry between 3dfx and Rendition fanbois were pretty heated at the time.

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="bowlingotter"] Awesome. I don't remember the first computer that was in our house but i only played BASIC games on it. But when we got the 386 SX, that's when I discovered the Sierra Quest games. bowlingotter

Sierra ruled back then. Now they are a mere shadow of the awesomeness they once were. I also loved the Wing Commander games they were awesome back then and still awesome today. I still remember Wing Commander 2 and the speechpack took more space to install then the size of my HD back then :lol:

Same with LucasArts they were awesome in the 80's and 90's today they can't even come close to the quality games they made and released back then. I mean I still need to see a game from them today which even comes close to the X-Wing games. And my favorite Sierra games from back them which i still play through every now and then are: Police Quest series (except 4 and the SWAT ones), Kings Quest series, Leisure Suit Larry series (good times and lots of lolz), Space Quest series, Gabriel Knight series (except 3), Phantasmagoria series, Conquest Of Camelot, Conquest Of The Longbow and i could go on. Man the good old days :)

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

dontshackzmii

There have been tons of Pc hate thread lately so we have mobilized to screenshot you to death. Seems it's working since noone ever responds when we do it :P

And yeah... Seems I've evolved from a slightly ps3 biased Manticore into a full fledged Hermit. bonus info there.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Not true. Resident Evil 4 looked worse on the PC than on the GameCube. NVIDIATI

Err...what?

This is a very simple contest: Which system is capable of generating better graphics. The PC has better hardware. It wins.

Although, honestly, I don't give a damn.

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

dontshackzmii

One thing consolites will never understand is that joy that comes from being able to play the most current games as well as those from almost 2 decades ago and still get the same amount of entertainment out of both. For consolites it seems like if it's not this gen it's completely forgotten.

Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?

Mystic-G

And:

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

whats with all the hermit postsgoing on?

Filthybastrd

There have been tons of Pc hate thread lately so we have mobilized to screenshot you to death. Seems it's working since noone ever responds when we do it :P

And yeah... Seems I've evolved from a slightly ps3 biased Manticore into a full fledged Hermit. bonus info there.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"][QUOTE="nameless12345"] Not true. Resident Evil 4 looked worse on the PC than on the GameCube. nameless12345

Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?Mystic-G

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Why do you lie?NVIDIATI

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?NVIDIATI

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Come again? Resident Evil 4 PC had all the lighting and effects of the GC version missing when it came out. Fact.nameless12345

he proved you wrong that is what he did with that pic. :roll:

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?nameless12345

If your point is that sometimes consoles sometimes have better graphics than the PC than I semi-agree about the N64 point. Everything else is too argumentative.

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

Not at all. Despite the PC's hardware superiority, that didn't prevent consoles from giving the PC a run for its money quite some times. Examples: Super Mario 64 was the first 3D accelerated game for home systems, Soul Calibur was the best-looking fighter in 1999 by far, Halo was the first FPS with pixel shaded effects, Gears of War was the first TPS with the Unreal Engine 3, the cars in Gran Turismo 3 and 5 Prologue looked the best in their time (even if some other racers might have had more detailed cars technically speaking), Uncharted 2 is hands-down the best-looking third-person action adventure and I could go on. So PC graphics = always superior = not true.nameless12345

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentt hat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. As of now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"][QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Since we're comparing Third-Person Action Adventures.... shall we also compare RTS games on PC vs Console?menes777

If your point is that sometimes consoles sometimes have better graphics than the PC than I semi-agree about the N64 point. Everything else is too argumentative.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]Not at all. Despite the PC's hardware superiority, that didn't prevent consoles from giving the PC a run for its money quite some times. Examples: Super Mario 64 was the first 3D accelerated game for home systems, Soul Calibur was the best-looking fighter in 1999 by far, Halo was the first FPS with pixel shaded effects, Gears of War was the first TPS with the Unreal Engine 3, the cars in Gran Turismo 3 and 5 Prologue looked the best in their time (even if some other racers might have had more detailed cars technically speaking), Uncharted 2 is hands-down the best-looking third-person action adventure and I could go on. So PC graphics = always superior = not true.Xtasy26

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentthat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. Asof now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

POD? Was that 3D accelerated? Was'nt that just the first MMX game? Maybe MMX was actually a sort of hardware 3D. Hard to recall these days :)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]Not at all. Despite the PC's hardware superiority, that didn't prevent consoles from giving the PC a run for its money quite some times. Examples: Super Mario 64 was the first 3D accelerated game for home systems, Soul Calibur was the best-looking fighter in 1999 by far, Halo was the first FPS with pixel shaded effects, Gears of War was the first TPS with the Unreal Engine 3, the cars in Gran Turismo 3 and 5 Prologue looked the best in their time (even if some other racers might have had more detailed cars technically speaking), Uncharted 2 is hands-down the best-looking third-person action adventure and I could go on. So PC graphics = always superior = not true.Xtasy26

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentthat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. Asof now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]Not at all. Despite the PC's hardware superiority, that didn't prevent consoles from giving the PC a run for its money quite some times. Examples: Super Mario 64 was the first 3D accelerated game for home systems, Soul Calibur was the best-looking fighter in 1999 by far, Halo was the first FPS with pixel shaded effects, Gears of War was the first TPS with the Unreal Engine 3, the cars in Gran Turismo 3 and 5 Prologue looked the best in their time (even if some other racers might have had more detailed cars technically speaking), Uncharted 2 is hands-down the best-looking third-person action adventure and I could go on. So PC graphics = always superior = not true.nameless12345

People were running Quake GL in 3D accelerated long before Super Mario 64. In fact consoles didn't get 3D accelerated GPUs until Dreamcast. The first 3D accelerated GPUs would go to the PC with the original Voodoo from 3DFX. In fact all the 3D accelerated cards came on the PC, 3D FX Voodoo 1 followed by Voodoo 2, nVidia's Riva 128, ATI Rage Pro, 3D Labs Premedia 2, Rendition Verite, etc. Quake 3 running on nVidia's Geforce 256 will mop the floor with Soul Calibur back in 1999, not to mention Soul Calibur was stuck with 480i while people were playing Quake 3 in HD on the PC back then. With respect to racing games, 3D accelerated games came on the PC first with the origninal POD. Not to mention Need For Speed 2 SE using 3D FX Glide back in 1997. In fact the 90s were dominated by PC when it came to graphics, with the Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal 1 in 1998, Quake 3 in 1999. No game on the consoles could compete with the PC in the 90s primarily due to the fact that consoles almost spentthat entire decade without any 3D hardware acceleration. With respect to hardware, PC garphics is always ahead. Asof now, nothing can touch Crysis and Crysis Warhead.

Are they? Now I have'nt actually researched this but from having play all 3 games, I'd say that Metro is a lot more up to date in regards to overall quality while the enviroment is a lot more static than Crysis is. As in: Nearly nothing reacts to your presence. when a grenade detonates in Crysis, the sorrounding's get blown up. In Metro, they get a burnt texture.

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

Filthybastrd

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

TheSterls

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

You just didn't claim Halo Wars comes even close to SC2 did you? I mean if you seriously believe that you need to get your eyes checked.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

TheSterls

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

It does look a lot better than that even though I had the decency to not downscale it the Halo Wars res.

And since you do own it, you know there's a hell of a lot moer going on... If I wanted to make a ZOMG point, I'd have posted more Metro Screenshots.

In fact, the shots I just posted look a lot better than that. Especially considering the whole ps360 gfx multiplat war.

[QUOTE="loadedboon"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

I thought the PS1 had the first widescale use 3d-accelerated graphics.

jun_aka_pekto

The Voodoo GPU's say hello.

The PS1/PSX was released in 1995. 3dfx Voodoo wasn't even released until near the end of 1996 after both PS1 and N64. I know because I received a special offer for one from Computability (now part of PC Mall) back in Dec 1996. The Voodoo didn't become widespread until early spring of 1997.

The card itself is long gone. But, I still have some of the games bundled with it:

And I thought I was the only one here gaming in 3D accelerated graphics from the 90s. :o Oh those pics bring back memories. Those were the days. By the way consoles were no where near because people were still using PS1 and Sega Saturn, N64. I remember not even paying any attention to the graphics on consoles because they didn't even have 3D accelerator cards like they have in today consoles. I remember 3D accelerators from nVidia, ATI, 3DFX, were all the rage because consoles didn't even have any 3D accelerators till late 1999.

[QUOTE="bowlingotter"][QUOTE="loadedboon"]

The Voodoo GPU's say hello.

jun_aka_pekto

I think 3dfx came first although Rendition had the first Quake patch which ticked me off at the time since I had a Voodoo. I recall the rivalry between 3dfx and Rendition fanbois were pretty heated at the time.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

TheSterls

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"] Read my first post again and try to figure out what my point was.nameless12345

If your point is that sometimes consoles sometimes have better graphics than the PC than I semi-agree about the N64 point. Everything else is too argumentative.

Why not bring up how the N64 was supposed to produce SGI like graphics (aka Toy Story like) or how the PS1 didn't have any AA to speak of in any of it's games? Closed systems may be able to temporarily catch up or maybe even surprass the open system, but the open system is always to going to catch up very rapidly or be miles ahead from the beginning.

At the time of its release - November 2006 - Gears of War on Xbox 360 was the best looking game on the market, and that includes PC games.

This wasn't because PC hardware was incapable of handling the game, only because at the time it was exclusive to the 360. Epic did later release a version on PC and it was better than the console version. But of course by then PC gamers were all salivating over Crysis.

Consoles have the best chance to exceed PC graphics at the beginning of a new generation (when consoles are about on par with PC hardware) with big budget, graphics-intensive exclusives and timed exclusives. After about 2 years, though, computer games definitely have greater potential.

The other difficult aspect of this for consoles is that developers are generally unfamiliar with how to program for new consoles and are unable to properly harness its power for several years; by this point, PC hardware is in another league altogether.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

chaplainDMK

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

That isn't the point you said SC2 doesn't look better then Halo Wars when in reality it does look alot better compared to Halo Wars and has a lot more going on on screen compared to Halo Wars. So no Halo Wars doesn't even compare to SC2.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

TheSterls

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

That screenshot reminds me of AoM. BTW those soldiers must have hover boots on.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Three quick non downscaled, actual gameplay Starcraft 2 screenshots for you. Where are those console Sup Com and CnC shots at?

chaplainDMK

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

I know it's made to scale. It's still way beyond any console rts in terms of gfx. And his GS certified Halo Wars screenie has nothing on the shots I posted from SC2 on last page.

You know your totally right. Every sane person knows that in the late 80s and early 90s the AMIGA was the graphics king, nothing could touch the awesome power of the AMIGA!

If the AMIGA was still around to this day i promise you every single game on it would look 10x better than Crysis!

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Yea SC2 looks so much better then that :roll:

I own SC2 account Hellrunner its visually sound but nothing that makes you go "ZOMG THIS IS PC GAMING"

loadedboon

That isn't the point you said SC2 doesn't look better then Halo Wars when in reality it does look alot better compared to Halo Wars and has a lot more going on on screen compared to Halo Wars. So no Halo Wars doesn't even compare to SC2.