Don't make me start up on Silent Hill 5! I mean seriously, stick man? WTF? :)ArcticSnake*Hits you with a baseball bat*
PS3 or new PC
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ArcticSnake"]As much as I agree with you on pretty much every single thing you have posted in this thread, why you gotta' be hating on Uncharted like that? Some of us hope you know :(.VandalvideoOk I'll put on my optimistic hat for you: Most of what I said was based off of the trailer that was on the Warhawk disc. Theres been reports of Naughty Dog taking things bad about the trailers and fixing the game based off of that. Who knows, maybe they fixed my concerns. (Extremely loose, crappy gunplay and flushed out visuals)
Go do yourself a favor and download the massive Attack trailer that just came out featuring the final build. You will notice improved textures and far better lighting it looks better then the old build but if you would have read the previews you would have already known that.
On a 8800gtx it gets 25 fps on high settings . On DX9 it runs on med settings and on med settings it doesnt look better then any console game annoucned thats a freaking joke especially when it runs like a dam slide show. And no 7.1 Uncompressed Audio sounds absoutley flawless do you own a PS3? Its as pure as it gets EAX adds extra effects um you dont need it when you have fully uncompressed sound. Regardless bash on Uncharted all you want I saw the new trailer and it looks simply amazing . It has the best animations ive ever seen in a game and some of the most realistic water around the whole thing looks absotley stunning. Polaris_choiceThat convoluted poor attempt at a rebuttal just shows how little you know about what yo're saying. I'm getting a constant 35 FPS on high and my rig is: 7900GS 2 GIGS DDR2 and PENTIUM D 945 3.2 dual core. Its a fairly modest rig as well. It only takes al ittle tweaking. And once again, sound isn't about how crisp it is, its about the overall presentation and package. YOu can have high fidelity, uncompressed crap all day, its still crap. EAX adds extra umph to the sound you just don't get on consoles.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]On a 8800gtx it gets 25 fps on high settings . On DX9 it runs on med settings and on med settings it doesnt look better then any console game annoucned thats a freaking joke especially when it runs like a dam slide show. And no 7.1 Uncompressed Audio sounds absoutley flawless do you own a PS3? Its as pure as it gets EAX adds extra effects um you dont need it when you have fully uncompressed sound. Regardless bash on Uncharted all you want I saw the new trailer and it looks simply amazing . It has the best animations ive ever seen in a game and some of the most realistic water around the whole thing looks absotley stunning. VandalvideoThat convoluted poor attempt at a rebuttal just shows how little you know about what yo're saying. I'm getting a constant 35 FPS on high and my rig is: 7900GS 2 GIGS DDR2 and PENTIUM D 945 3.2 dual core. Its a fairly modest rig as well. It only takes al ittle tweaking. And once again, sound isn't about how crisp it is, its about the overall presentation and package. YOu can have high fidelity, uncompressed crap all day, its still crap. EAX adds extra umph to the sound you just don't get on consoles.
If you running it at 35 fps you are doing it with DX9 effects gimped resolution and lowering the shadows. And dont blabber about how I dont know what im talkin about my freinds rig stomps yours and yes ive played it over there. He maxes the demo at 1600x1200 and hes getting on average 25 fps with DX10 effects. Also do you even own a PS3? A gunshot coming off a surriound system can make the whole house shake and make your neighbors call the police stop acting like your getting crap sound you dont evne own the system . If you cant accurattley compare the two then why comment?
If you running it at 35 fps you are doing it with DX9 effects gimped resolution and lowering the shadows. And dont blabber about how I dont know what im talkin about my freinds rig stomps yours and yes ive played it over there. He maxes the demo at 1600x1200 and hes getting on average 25 fps with DX10 effects. Also do you evne own a PS3? A gunshot coming off a surriound system can make the whole house shake and make your neighbors call the police stop acting like your getting crap sound you dont evne own the system . If you cant accurtatley compare the two then why comment?Polaris_choiceOf course I lowered the shadows. They don't add a great deal of graphical fidelity to begin with. I was playing at 720P because thats what my monitor is native in. I really don't feel the need to get in an e-peen contest. Your friend is clearly bad at computers. With my modest rig I'm able to get stable frames per second easily on high. Do you even play PC games? Just because something is loud doesn't make it GOOD. EAX is alla bout packacing and quality. It dwarfs PS3 sound easily. And yes, I owned the system.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]On a 8800gtx it gets 25 fps on high settings . On DX9 it runs on med settings and on med settings it doesnt look better then any console game annoucned thats a freaking joke especially when it runs like a dam slide show. And no 7.1 Uncompressed Audio sounds absoutley flawless do you own a PS3? Its as pure as it gets EAX adds extra effects um you dont need it when you have fully uncompressed sound. Regardless bash on Uncharted all you want I saw the new trailer and it looks simply amazing . It has the best animations ive ever seen in a game and some of the most realistic water around the whole thing looks absotley stunning. VandalvideoThat convoluted poor attempt at a rebuttal just shows how little you know about what yo're saying. I'm getting a constant 35 FPS on high and my rig is: 7900GS 2 GIGS DDR2 and PENTIUM D 945 3.2 dual core. Its a fairly modest rig as well. It only takes al ittle tweaking. And once again, sound isn't about how crisp it is, its about the overall presentation and package. YOu can have high fidelity, uncompressed crap all day, its still crap. EAX adds extra umph to the sound you just don't get on consoles.
PS3 has the best audio in games. Heavenly Sword has over 10GB of audio alone.
PS3 has the best audio in games. Heavenly Sword has over 10GB of audio alone.m3Boarder32Once again, its not about how large the audio files are, the hertz its in, or the compression style. Its all about the overall packaging and presentation. EAX adds extra reverb, simulates evnrioments, and overall creates extra quality you WON'T find on any console.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]If you running it at 35 fps you are doing it with DX9 effects gimped resolution and lowering the shadows. And dont blabber about how I dont know what im talkin about my freinds rig stomps yours and yes ive played it over there. He maxes the demo at 1600x1200 and hes getting on average 25 fps with DX10 effects. Also do you evne own a PS3? A gunshot coming off a surriound system can make the whole house shake and make your neighbors call the police stop acting like your getting crap sound you dont evne own the system . If you cant accurtatley compare the two then why comment?VandalvideoOf course I lowered the shadows. They don't add a great deal of graphical fidelity to begin with. I was playing at 720P because thats what my monitor is native in. I really don't feel the need to get in an e-peen contest. Your friend is clearly bad at computers. With my modest rig I'm able to get stable frames per second easily on high. Do you even play PC games? Just because something is loud doesn't make it GOOD. EAX is alla bout packacing and quality. It dwarfs PS3 sound easily. And yes, I owned the system.
Not every PS3 game has uncompressed audio. And i seriously doubt you have heard a PS3 game with uncompressed audio hooked up to a 5.1 or 7.1 Home Theater via HDMI
Not every PS3 game has uncompressed audio. And i seriously doubt you have heard a PS3 game with uncompressed audio hooked up to a 5.1 or 7.1 Home Theater via HDMIm3Boarder32ACtually I have, btu once again, that doesn't affect my arguement. You can have the audio as crisp and as clear as you want, it still can't compare to the added reverb, simulated enviroments, and extra quips you get with EAX.
[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]PS3 has the best audio in games. Heavenly Sword has over 10GB of audio alone.VandalvideoOnce again, its not about how large the audio files are, the hertz its in, or the compression style. Its all about the overall packaging and presentation. EAX adds extra reverb, simulates evnrioments, and overall creates extra quality you WON'T find on any console.
Sorry but no..The higher the audio bitrates, the better the quality of the audio..
High Bitrate audio like that found on SOME PS3 games can't be passed through optical or coaxial, it only works thru HDMI
Once again, its not about how large the audio files are, the hertz its in, or the compression style. Its all about the overall packaging and presentation. EAX adds extra reverb, simulates evnrioments, and overall creates extra quality you WON'T find on any console.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]PS3 has the best audio in games. Heavenly Sword has over 10GB of audio alone.m3Boarder32
Sorry but no..The higher the audio bitrates, the better the quality of the audio..
High Bitrate audio like that found on SOME PS3 games can't be passed through optical or coaxial, it only works thru HDMI
You don't get it do you? Its not about high crispy and clear or high fidelity the audio is, its about overall PRESENTATION. Thats what EAX is for. EAX isn't some codec or compression style, its software acceleration that adds reverb and simuilated enviroments you CAN'T get on consoles. End of story.[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]Once again, its not about how large the audio files are, the hertz its in, or the compression style. Its all about the overall packaging and presentation. EAX adds extra reverb, simulates evnrioments, and overall creates extra quality you WON'T find on any console.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]PS3 has the best audio in games. Heavenly Sword has over 10GB of audio alone.Vandalvideo
Sorry but no..The higher the audio bitrates, the better the quality of the audio..
High Bitrate audio like that found on SOME PS3 games can't be passed through optical or coaxial, it only works thru HDMI
You don't get it do you? Its not about high crispy and clear or high fidelity the audio is, its about overall PRESENTATION. Thats what EAX is for. EAX isn't some codec or compression style, its software acceleration that adds reverb and simuilated enviroments you CAN'T get on consoles. End of story.OMG! EAX can do 128 voices!! Watch out!! LALAMLAMA...Please..That aint ****
OMG! EAX can do 128 voices!! Watch out!! LALAMLAMA...Please..That aint m3Boarder32EAX, "it realyl whips the llama's ***". Only a person who hasn't experienced it could say that EAX isn't all that. It IS all that and a bag of chips.
[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]OMG! EAX can do 128 voices!! Watch out!! LALAMLAMA...Please..That aint VandalvideoEAX, "it realyl whips the llama's ***". Only a person who hasn't experienced it could say that EAX isn't all that. It IS all that and a bag of chips.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147812/index.html
PlayStation 3 Audio
Next-gen consoles like the PlayStation 3 make considerable inroads into improving what goes into your ears. The PS3 will be able to run up to 512 different voices, and apply different sound layers onto them depending on what the developer wishes. More voices means more concurrent sounds--like background music, cars screeching, crashing, guns shooting, and people talking. More layers means more ways to filter the sound. For example, the developer can change the sound of a gunshot to fit into a cave-like environment. The PS3 will support up to eight channels of audio, or 7.1, running at 96KBs per channel. Reduced-channel formats, like Dolby Digital 5.1, will have higher bit-rate audio streams. We've had 5.1 surround sound since the last generation of games, but expect more games to take advantage of the virtualization features with better sound placement.
EAX, "it realyl whips the llama's ***". Only a person who hasn't experienced it could say that EAX isn't all that. It IS all that and a bag of chips.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]OMG! EAX can do 128 voices!! Watch out!! LALAMLAMA...Please..That aint m3Boarder32
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147812/index.html
PlayStation 3 Audio
Next-gen consoles like the PlayStation 3 make considerable inroads into improving what goes into your ears. The PS3 will be able to run up to 512 different voices, and apply different sound layers onto them depending on what the developer wishes. More voices means more concurrent sounds--like background music, cars screeching, crashing, guns shooting, and people talking. More layers means more ways to filter the sound. For example, the developer can change the sound of a gunshot to fit into a cave-like environment. The PS3 will support up to eight channels of audio, or 7.1, running at 96KBs per channel. Reduced-channel formats, like Dolby Digital 5.1, will have higher bit-rate audio streams. We've had 5.1 surround sound since the last generation of games, but expect more games to take advantage of the virtualization features with better sound placement.
That still isn't anything like what EAX is: Multi-Environments™ Supports rendering of multiple simultaneous audio environments in real-time, enabling the creation of exceptionally realistic acoustic environments in games containing multiple locations/rooms where differences in size, texture and/or shape are present. Environment Panning™ Makes spatializing and localizing environments in 3D possible, providing new 3D gaming effects never heard before. Environment Reflections™ Offers localization of early reflections and echoes, bringing more detail and realism to 3D gaming. Environment Filtering™ Accurately simulates the propagation of sound in both open and closed environments. Environment Morphing™ Allows for seamless transition of audio from one environment to the next. Extreme Effects New EAX effects rendered by an extended reverberation algorithm that surpasses the complexity of many studio-based reverb processors. Extended Hardware Effects The Sound Blaster® Audigy®, Audigy® 2 and Audigy® 2 ZS have extended effects, normally only used in music creation (Flanger, Echo, Distortion and Ring Modulation). EAX 4.0 ADVANCED HD can now tap into these effects for real-time manipulation of audio streams that provide developers with new ways to deliver unique audio in gaming environments. http://www.soundblaster.com/resources/read.asp?articleid=53831 This is hardware/software accelration NOT found on consoles in any capacity, end of story, I win.What do I think? Doesn't really matter what I think. Do what you want lol... its your life :P
Asking for advice in forums where you gonna get fanboys to respond their opinion.
Just buy the system your favourite games are on... simple as that ;)
Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
-D3MO-
yup i agree with this guy, wait a bit, pc hardware is always getting cheaper, and ps3 needs more games to really be worthy of your money, only buy a specifc plataform now if you are absolutly sure that you want to play more X games on one plataform then on the other.
also remember, the pc can do more then play games, and the ps3 can play blu ray, so it all depends on what you rather have.
You are to misinforemd to even come up with an intelligent argument.Polaris_choice
Yet of the original 10 points you were arguing against, your now only able to challenge 3 of them. If he can't come up with an intelligent argument, it really says something about your debate skills...
The PS3 is marked up? Um do some research it cost Sony 850$ to manufature each model that they sold for 600$ you simply have no clue what your talking about.Polaris_choice
I'd say what he's getting at is that for a gaming console, the PS3 is way too expensive because of the addition of Blu-ray, technology which so far has proven itself to have minimal benefit to gaming.
Better sound? Um the PS3 has 7.1 uncompressed Audio its absoutley flawless you have no clue what your talking about futher adding to the fact that you dont own one.Polaris_choice
Vandal covered this point so well there's no need to repeat it.
As for visuals I would gladly take Uncharted against any pc game this year. The only pc game that looks better is Cryisis and it runs like absolute garbage on high settings while th PS3 runs good looking games sily smooth but hey im sure you can claim ownage on some crappy multiplat that doesnt look good to begin with.Polaris_choice
So basically, you admit the PC is capable of better looking games just that you've take Uncharted as you seem to feel it's somehow subjectively better?
A gaming pc becomes a paperweight in 1 year I feel sorry for any poor sap that bought a high end DX9 card a year ago as there pc is already usless.Polaris_choice
Kind of amusing you criticized someone else for stupid statements then wrote this...
As of right now I would have to say save up money and buy a nice PC. PS3 doesn't have that many quality titles out for it at the moment.
arcmanis
[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]EAX, "it realyl whips the llama's ***". Only a person who hasn't experienced it could say that EAX isn't all that. It IS all that and a bag of chips.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]OMG! EAX can do 128 voices!! Watch out!! LALAMLAMA...Please..That aint Vandalvideo
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147812/index.html
PlayStation 3 Audio
Next-gen consoles like the PlayStation 3 make considerable inroads into improving what goes into your ears. The PS3 will be able to run up to 512 different voices, and apply different sound layers onto them depending on what the developer wishes. More voices means more concurrent sounds--like background music, cars screeching, crashing, guns shooting, and people talking. More layers means more ways to filter the sound. For example, the developer can change the sound of a gunshot to fit into a cave-like environment. The PS3 will support up to eight channels of audio, or 7.1, running at 96KBs per channel. Reduced-channel formats, like Dolby Digital 5.1, will have higher bit-rate audio streams. We've had 5.1 surround sound since the last generation of games, but expect more games to take advantage of the virtualization features with better sound placement.
That still isn't anything like what EAX is: Multi-EnvironmentsTM Supports rendering of multiple simultaneous audio environments in real-time, enabling the creation of exceptionally realistic acoustic environments in games containing multiple locations/rooms where differences in size, texture and/or shape are present. Environment PanningTM Makes spatializing and localizing environments in 3D possible, providing new 3D gaming effects never heard before. Environment ReflectionsTM Offers localization of early reflections and echoes, bringing more detail and realism to 3D gaming. Environment FilteringTM Accurately simulates the propagation of sound in both open and closed environments. Environment MorphingTM Allows for seamless transition of audio from one environment to the next. Extreme Effects New EAX effects rendered by an extended reverberation algorithm that surpasses the complexity of many studio-based reverb processors. Extended Hardware Effects The Sound Blaster® Audigy®, Audigy® 2 and Audigy® 2 ZS have extended effects, normally only used in music creation (Flanger, Echo, Distortion and Ring Modulation). EAX 4.0 ADVANCED HD can now tap into these effects for real-time manipulation of audio streams that provide developers with new ways to deliver unique audio in gaming environments. http://www.soundblaster.com/resources/read.asp?articleid=53831 This is hardware/software accelration NOT found on consoles in any capacity, end of story, I win.i think no one debunks more pc to console myths more then you do, too bad most people just ignore posts like this
Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
-D3MO-
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
[QUOTE="-D3MO-"]Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
imprezawrx500
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
No DX9 pc leaves consoles in the dust look at the whooping bioshock put on most pc's DX9 has nothing on either the PS3 or 360.
[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-D3MO-"]Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
Polaris_choice
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
No DX9 pc leaves consoles in the dust look at the whooping bioshock put on most pc's DX9 has nothing on either the PS3 or 360.
Funny, GameSpot says the 360 only surpasses Bioshock on PC when the PC version is turned down to medium. (HINT: Dx9 cards aren't capped at medium, they can run on high!).
As for Crysis, you can run that on high on a Dx9 card. Guess what, it looks better than any 360/PS3 game.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]You are to misinforemd to even come up with an intelligent argument.Danm_999
Yet of the original 10 points you were arguing against, your now only able to challenge 3 of them. If he can't come up with an intelligent argument, it really says something about your debate skills...
The PS3 is marked up? Um do some research it cost Sony 850$ to manufature each model that they sold for 600$ you simply have no clue what your talking about.Polaris_choice
I'd say what he's getting at is that for a gaming console, the PS3 is way too expensive because of the addition of Blu-ray, technology which so far has proven itself to have minimal benefit to gaming.
Better sound? Um the PS3 has 7.1 uncompressed Audio its absoutley flawless you have no clue what your talking about futher adding to the fact that you dont own one.Polaris_choice
Vandal covered this point so well there's no need to repeat it.
As for visuals I would gladly take Uncharted against any pc game this year. The only pc game that looks better is Cryisis and it runs like absolute garbage on high settings while th PS3 runs good looking games sily smooth but hey im sure you can claim ownage on some crappy multiplat that doesnt look good to begin with.Polaris_choice
So basically, you admit the PC is capable of better looking games just that you've take Uncharted as you seem to feel it's somehow subjectively better?
A gaming pc becomes a paperweight in 1 year I feel sorry for any poor sap that bought a high end DX9 card a year ago as there pc is already usless.Polaris_choice
Kind of amusing you criticized someone else for stupid statements then wrote this...
Dan99 I can still challenge all of them as I have before he has yet to come up with one valid argument . As for the pc being capable of better looking games um that is subjective the PS3 is capable of better looking games as well. Crysis isnt even close to what the average pc game looks like. And on average yes I would say the PS3 has more visually impressive games comign to it next year then the pc.
As for the sound argument as vandelvio did was post a EAX advertisement compared to quick gamespot run down of the PS3's sound capablites. Basically the PS3 can layer sound and come up with the exact smae effects. I have acess to a very high end rig the best single GPU solution around along with a top of the line sound card and no there is no dffirece in sound quality granted you are comparing two games that have good sound to begin with.
Anywyas the Hermit brigade can continue to team up on me I could care less if pc gamign is so great then go play your 500$ rigs that are 10x more powerful then the PS3.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-D3MO-"]Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
Danm_999
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
No DX9 pc leaves consoles in the dust look at the whooping bioshock put on most pc's DX9 has nothing on either the PS3 or 360.
Funny, GameSpot says the 360 only surpasses Bioshock on PC when the PC version is turned down to medium. (HINT: Dx9 cards aren't capped at medium, they can run on high!).
As for Crysis, you can run that on high on a Dx9 card. Guess what, it looks better than any 360/PS3 game.
crysis on medium looks better then most console games out there, if we are talking about graphics here the pc will be always on top, now when discussing games, its all about preferences.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-D3MO-"]Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
Danm_999
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
No DX9 pc leaves consoles in the dust look at the whooping bioshock put on most pc's DX9 has nothing on either the PS3 or 360.
Funny, GameSpot says the 360 only surpasses Bioshock on PC when the PC version is turned down to medium. (HINT: Dx9 cards aren't capped at medium, they can run on high!).
As for Crysis, you can run that on high on a Dx9 card. Guess what, it looks better than any 360/PS3 game.
Um they say it looks near identical to when playing it on high and they were doing a DX10 comparison so you fail. Look at the benchmarks of how all the DX9 cards run Crysis. Cards that came out almost a year after the 360 run it about the same.
And no Crysis on full high settings runs like a slide show on DX9 cards unless your playing at gimped resolution with no shadows and no DX10 effects so im sorry id much rather take COD4 on the PS3 at 60fps then Crysis running at 25fps.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-D3MO-"]Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
Mizarus
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
No DX9 pc leaves consoles in the dust look at the whooping bioshock put on most pc's DX9 has nothing on either the PS3 or 360.
Funny, GameSpot says the 360 only surpasses Bioshock on PC when the PC version is turned down to medium. (HINT: Dx9 cards aren't capped at medium, they can run on high!).
As for Crysis, you can run that on high on a Dx9 card. Guess what, it looks better than any 360/PS3 game.
crysis on medium looks better then most console games out there, if we are talking about graphics here the pc will be always on top, now when discussing games, its all about preferences.
Crysis on Medium looks better then most pc games towhats your point?
Dan99 I can still challenge all of them as I have before he has yet to come up with one valid argument . Polaris_choice
Start with the simplest one then. How does the PS3 have better games available, and your argument cannot be utterly subjective (ie, an opinion), it has to be based on some sort of objective fact.
For example, the fact that GameSpot has given more AAAEs and AAEs for the PC than the PS3.
As for the pc being capable of better looking games um that is subjective the PS3 is capable of better looking games as well. Crysis isnt even close to what the average pc game looks like. And on average yes I would say the PS3 has more visually impressive games comign to it next year then the pc.Polaris_choice
If you actually think the PS3 is capable of better looking games than the PC your delusional. The hardware is so different right now, according to Crytek Crysis isn't even possible on consoles as it is on PC. And I would disagree that the PS3 has better looking games coming next year, I think Far Cry 2, Empire Total War and Alan Wake on PC will be the top dogs of graphics.
As for the sound argument as vandelvio did was post a EAX advertisement compared to quick gamespot run down of the PS3's sound capablites. Basically the PS3 can layer sound and come up with the exact smae effects. I have acess to a very high end rig the best single GPU solution around along with a top of the line sound card and no there is no dffirece in sound quality granted you are comparing two games that have good sound to begin with.Polaris_choice
You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of this when you think the PS3 is capable of better looking games than the PC.
Anywyas the Hermit brigade can continue to team up on me I could care less if pc gamign is so great then go play your 500$ rigs that are 10x more powerful then the PS3.Polaris_choice
Cool, I was totally arguing about $500 rigs. It's good to see your forming intelligent debates, not hyperbole and a bunch of strawmans.
[QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]Once again, its not about how large the audio files are, the hertz its in, or the compression style. Its all about the overall packaging and presentation. EAX adds extra reverb, simulates evnrioments, and overall creates extra quality you WON'T find on any console.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="m3Boarder32"]PS3 has the best audio in games. Heavenly Sword has over 10GB of audio alone.Vandalvideo
Sorry but no..The higher the audio bitrates, the better the quality of the audio..
High Bitrate audio like that found on SOME PS3 games can't be passed through optical or coaxial, it only works thru HDMI
You don't get it do you? Its not about high crispy and clear or high fidelity the audio is, its about overall PRESENTATION. Thats what EAX is for. EAX isn't some codec or compression style, its software acceleration that adds reverb and simuilated enviroments you CAN'T get on consoles. End of story.LOL you can emulate any of those simulated effects through layering you have absoutley no clue what your talking about. The PS3 simply has a crisper and more clear sound any effects EAX can do can be added through layering it would simply take more memory on the disk .
As for the sound argument as vandelvio did was post a EAX advertisement compared to quick gamespot run down of the PS3's sound capablites. Basically the PS3 can layer sound and come up with the exact smae effects. I have acess to a very high end rig the best single GPU solution around along with a top of the line sound card and no there is no dffirece in sound quality granted you are comparing two games that have good sound to begin with. Polaris_choiceCompletely and entirely wrong. As I said earlier, and proved, EAX is hardware and software acceleration entirely different from what the PS3 is doing. With layered sound all thats doing is giving capabilities for better audio. Thats not what EAX is AT ALL. The PS3 itself doesn't add reverb or simulate enviroments. It only plays back audio thats already in the game. EAX, however, is a universal hardware accelerater that enchances the audio for EVERYTHING. IT adds extra depth to everything. EAX on PC > PS3. End of story.
LOL you can emulate any of those simulated effects through layering you have absoutley no clue what your talking about. The PS3 simply has a crisper and more clear sound any effects EAX can do can be added through layering it would simply take more memory on the disk . Polaris_choiceAs I just said in my above post, wrong. Layering itself doesn't do waht EAX does. EAX is a hardware side accelerator that isn't featured in consoles. END OF STORY. I WIN.l
Um they say it looks near identical to when playing it on high and they were doing a DX10 comparison so you fail. Look at the benchmarks of how all the DX9 cards run Crysis. Cards that came out almost a year after the 360 run it about the same.Polaris_choice
No, they say their comparable, with PC having the edge due to higher resolutions and AA. Geez, if your going to throw around horribly cliche terms like "you fail" you could at least do yourself the courtesy of reading the article and making sure your case is secure.
And no Crysis on full high settings runs like a slide show on DX9 cards unless your playing at gimped resolution with no shadows and no DX10 effects so im sorry id much rather take COD4 on the PS3 at 60fps then Crysis running at 25fps.Polaris_choice
It runs fine on my rig on max resolution with no AA. I doubt you'll believe that though....
[QUOTE="Mizarus"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="-D3MO-"]Do not get a PC now, DX10 isin't worth it right now. Wait till MS fixes the Vista and DX10 bugs. Then go for the PC.
As for the PS3...its up to you. I personally have one, enjoy it, own R:FOM, Motorstorm, R&C, and a few others, play it fairly often. Its not a bad console. But again I have all the consoles and a PC, worked hard for all of 'em.
I'd recommend waiting on both though. Unless you really must play R:FOM or Motorstorm, both great games BTW, I would wait till next year.
Polaris_choice
that's no reason not to get a pc as dx9 pcs still leaves consoles in the dust. just look at crysis, bioshock etc
No DX9 pc leaves consoles in the dust look at the whooping bioshock put on most pc's DX9 has nothing on either the PS3 or 360.
Funny, GameSpot says the 360 only surpasses Bioshock on PC when the PC version is turned down to medium. (HINT: Dx9 cards aren't capped at medium, they can run on high!).
As for Crysis, you can run that on high on a Dx9 card. Guess what, it looks better than any 360/PS3 game.
crysis on medium looks better then most console games out there, if we are talking about graphics here the pc will be always on top, now when discussing games, its all about preferences.
Crysis on Medium looks better then most pc games towhats your point?
read the whole post and you will see that i pretty much said this.
"in the end graphics do not matter"
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Dan99 I can still challenge all of them as I have before he has yet to come up with one valid argument . Danm_999
Start with the simplest one then. How does the PS3 have better games available, and your argument cannot be utterly subjective (ie, an opinion), it has to be based on some sort of objective fact.
For example, the fact that GameSpot has given more AAAEs and AAEs for the PC than the PS3.
As for the pc being capable of better looking games um that is subjective the PS3 is capable of better looking games as well. Crysis isnt even close to what the average pc game looks like. And on average yes I would say the PS3 has more visually impressive games comign to it next year then the pc.Polaris_choice
If you actually think the PS3 is capable of better looking games than the PC your delusional. The hardware is so different right now, according to Crytek Crysis isn't even possible on consoles as it is on PC. And I would disagree that the PS3 has better looking games coming next year, I think Far Cry 2, Empire Total War and Alan Wake on PC will be the top dogs of graphics.
As for the sound argument as vandelvio did was post a EAX advertisement compared to quick gamespot run down of the PS3's sound capablites. Basically the PS3 can layer sound and come up with the exact smae effects. I have acess to a very high end rig the best single GPU solution around along with a top of the line sound card and no there is no dffirece in sound quality granted you are comparing two games that have good sound to begin with.Polaris_choice
You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of this when you think the PS3 is capable of better looking games than the PC.
Anywyas the Hermit brigade can continue to team up on me I could care less if pc gamign is so great then go play your 500$ rigs that are 10x more powerful then the PS3.Polaris_choice
Cool, I was totally arguing about $500 rigs. It's good to see your forming intelligent debates, not hyperbole and a bunch of strawmans.
I brought up the 500$ rig argument because thats how ridiculous the hermit brigade sounds including yourself. So consoles arent capable of better lookign visuals then pc. So that means every game that came out for pc this year looks far superior to Heavnly sword correct? You simply have no clue what your talking about but if you want to talk about top dogs in graphics I would add MGS4, RE5 and KZ2 to that list. This year the only contender pc has is Crysis and Cod4 while consoles will have Assasins Creed, Uncharted and Mass Effect all of which look far superior to any game that came out on pc this year so far.
As for Crysis not being possible on consoles the only problem with consoels accrording to Cevat is the massive enviornments due to limited ram but there are technolgies that will eventually change that which are evoloving every day. He said both consoles had the visual processing power to run Crysis but lack RAM is the problem. There are other areas in which consoles excell at especially the PS3 . Take the superior animations in Uncharted for an example thats a processor function are the lighting technique used in KZ2( which has been called the most impressive in any game to date).
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Um they say it looks near identical to when playing it on high and they were doing a DX10 comparison so you fail. Look at the benchmarks of how all the DX9 cards run Crysis. Cards that came out almost a year after the 360 run it about the same.Danm_999
No, they say their comparable, with PC having the edge due to higher resolutions and AA. Geez, if your going to throw around horribly cliche terms like "you fail" you could at least do yourself the courtesy of reading the article and making sure your case is secure.
And no Crysis on full high settings runs like a slide show on DX9 cards unless your playing at gimped resolution with no shadows and no DX10 effects so im sorry id much rather take COD4 on the PS3 at 60fps then Crysis running at 25fps.Polaris_choice
It runs fine on my rig on max resolution with no AA. I doubt you'll believe that though....
I said it ran as well as cards that came out a year after the 360 please explain to me how my case istn secure? A card that came out year after the 300$ xbox runs it as well as the 360 give me a dam break. Bascially you get the same expereine as a top of the line rig in the case of Bioshock with slightly lower res and 4x AA instead of 16x. OH NO HOW CAN I PLAY THE NOOBIE CONSOLE VERSION!!!! MY EYES ARE BURNING
And no I dont belive you because the Benchmarks say other wise. I also played it on a 8800gtx and a Quad core processor and with 2 gigs of Ram and we averaged about 25fps sometimes going up in the low 30's and the benchmarks show thatthis is normal. So its simply impossible for you to play at 1600x1200 res with the same results.
The only thing I can gather from Polaris's hatred, and making obtuse arguements/comments is that he does not have the funds to afford PC gaming (even though you can build a good rig for less than 1g). Dude just stop hating already. PS3 is, and always will be inferior to PC. Same goes for all consoles. Does that mean the games are inferior, of course not. Just quit spewing uninformed bs. The demo in Crysis has no optimization, runs on 1 cpu core, and will be better at release. Since you have no idea what the heck you are talking about you prolly did not know that FEAR was the same way two years ago. Now, and for the past year or so a mid range PC can max it.
[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Cool, I was totally arguing about $500 rigs. It's good to see your forming intelligent debates, not hyperbole and a bunch of strawmans.
Polaris_choice
I brought up the 500$ rig argument because thats how ridiculous the hermit brigade sounds including yourself. So consoles arent capable of better lookign visuals then pc. So that means every game that came out for pc this year looks far superior to Heavnly sword correct? You simply have no clue what your talking about but if you want to talk about top dogs in graphics I would add MGS4, RE5 and KZ2 to that list. This year the only contender pc has is Crysis and Cod4 while consoles will have Assasins Creed, Uncharted and Mass Effect all of which look far superior to any game that came out on pc this year so far.
As for Crysis not being possible on consoles the only problem with consoels accrording to Cevat is the massive enviornments due to limited ram but there are technolgies that will eventually change that which are evoloving every day. He said both consoles had the visual processing power to run Crysis but lack RAM is the problem. There are other areas in which consoles excell at especially the PS3 . Take the superior animations in Uncharted for an example thats a processor function are the lighting technique used in KZ2( which has been called the most impressive in any game to date).
iam pretty sure assassin's creed is coming out for pc, also iam starting to notice that pc gamers tend to care less about graphics then console gamers do.
The only thing I can gather from Polaris's hatred, and making obtuse arguements/comments is that he does not have the funds to afford PC gaming (even though you can build a good rig for less than 1g). Dude just stop hating already. PS3 is, and always will be inferior to PC. Same goes for all consoles. Does that mean the games are inferior, of course not. Just quit spewing uninformed bs. The demo in Crysis has no optimization, runs on 1 cpu core, and will be better at release. Since you have no idea what the heck you are talking about you prolly did not know that FEAR was the same way two years ago. Now, and for the past year or so a mid range PC can max it.
neogeo419
Yea I dont have the funds yet my TV cost more then any of your rigs so dont waste time making assumptions about someone you know nothign about. I dont own a high end rig because my freind does and I usually play his for the few games I want to play and I own a decent pc to play the les technically demanding games that I seem to enjoy the most on pc anywas. And no the PS3 isnt inferior to the PC. The only pc one could argue is even better are high end rigs and not everyone has one im sick of people throwing around the term(PC as every pc gamer has this $1500 dollar overlcocked rig) because thats not the way it is. The PS3 is a viable gaming platform with great tech and features for the money you spend for it. And the main reason I think its the best is it simply is stronger in the genres that i find the most appealing.( Acton Adventure and Fighting) Which brings me back to my orginal point he should pick the system based on the games he wants.
Good Night!!
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]Cool, I was totally arguing about $500 rigs. It's good to see your forming intelligent debates, not hyperbole and a bunch of strawmans.
Mizarus
I brought up the 500$ rig argument because thats how ridiculous the hermit brigade sounds including yourself. So consoles arent capable of better lookign visuals then pc. So that means every game that came out for pc this year looks far superior to Heavnly sword correct? You simply have no clue what your talking about but if you want to talk about top dogs in graphics I would add MGS4, RE5 and KZ2 to that list. This year the only contender pc has is Crysis and Cod4 while consoles will have Assasins Creed, Uncharted and Mass Effect all of which look far superior to any game that came out on pc this year so far.
As for Crysis not being possible on consoles the only problem with consoels accrording to Cevat is the massive enviornments due to limited ram but there are technolgies that will eventually change that which are evoloving every day. He said both consoles had the visual processing power to run Crysis but lack RAM is the problem. There are other areas in which consoles excell at especially the PS3 . Take the superior animations in Uncharted for an example thats a processor function are the lighting technique used in KZ2( which has been called the most impressive in any game to date).
iam pretty sure assassin's creed is coming out for pc, also iam starting to notice that pc gamers tend to care less about graphics then console gamers do.
Yes but not this year and Ubisoft games have never been great on pc.
[QUOTE="neogeo419"]The only thing I can gather from Polaris's hatred, and making obtuse arguements/comments is that he does not have the funds to afford PC gaming (even though you can build a good rig for less than 1g). Dude just stop hating already. PS3 is, and always will be inferior to PC. Same goes for all consoles. Does that mean the games are inferior, of course not. Just quit spewing uninformed bs. The demo in Crysis has no optimization, runs on 1 cpu core, and will be better at release. Since you have no idea what the heck you are talking about you prolly did not know that FEAR was the same way two years ago. Now, and for the past year or so a mid range PC can max it.
Polaris_choice
Yea I dont have the funds yet my TV cost more then any of your rigs so dont waste time making assumptions about someone you know nothign about. I dont own a high end rig because my freind does and I usually play his for the few games I want to play and I own a decent pc to paly the les technically demanding games that I seem to enjoy the most on pc anywas. And no the PS3 isnt inferior to the PC. The only pc one could argue is even better are high end rigs and not everyone has one im sick of people throwing around the term(PC as every pc gamer has this $1500 dollar overlcocked rig) because thats not the way it is. The PS3 is a viable gamint platform with great tech and features for the money you spend for it. And the main reason I think its the best is it simply is stronger in the genres that i find the most appealing.( Acton Adventure and Fighting) Which brings me back to my orginal point he should pick the system based on the games he wants.
coudnt agree more, too bad this is system wars and any trhead about SystemVsSystem turns out being a flame bait.
[QUOTE="neogeo419"]The only thing I can gather from Polaris's hatred, and making obtuse arguements/comments is that he does not have the funds to afford PC gaming (even though you can build a good rig for less than 1g). Dude just stop hating already. PS3 is, and always will be inferior to PC. Same goes for all consoles. Does that mean the games are inferior, of course not. Just quit spewing uninformed bs. The demo in Crysis has no optimization, runs on 1 cpu core, and will be better at release. Since you have no idea what the heck you are talking about you prolly did not know that FEAR was the same way two years ago. Now, and for the past year or so a mid range PC can max it.
Polaris_choice
Yea I dont have the funds yet my TV cost more then any of your rigs so dont waste time making assumptions about someone you know nothign about. I dont own a high end rig because my freind does and I usually play his for the few games I want to play and I own a decent pc to paly the les technically demanding games that I seem to enjoy the most on pc anywas. And no the PS3 isnt inferior to the PC. The only pc one could argue is even better are high end rigs and not everyone has one im sick of people throwing around the term(PC as every pc gamer has this $1500 dollar overlcocked rig) because thats not the way it is. The PS3 is a viable gamint platform with great tech and features for the money you spend for it. And the main reason I think its the best is it simply is stronger in the genres that i find the most appealing.( Acton Adventure and Fighting) Which brings me back to my orginal point he should pick the system based on the games he wants.
So you have an expensive TV, and you are a mooch? Are you a kid? Also I made a correct assumption;)Im my country a PS3 costs $1000. :lol:You are to misinforemd to even come up with an intelligent argument.
The PS3 is marked up? Um do some research it cost Sony 850$ to manufature each model that they sold for 600$ you simply have no clue what your talking about.
Better sound? Um the PS3 has 7.1 uncompressed Audio its absoutley flawless you have no clue what your talking about futher adding to the fact that you dont own one.
As for visuals I would gladly take Uncharted against any pc game this year. The only pc game that looks better is Cryisis and it runs like absolute garbage on high settings while th PS3 runs good looking games sily smooth but hey im sure you can claim ownage on some crappy multiplat that doesnt look good to begin with.
A gaming pc becomes a paperweight in 1 year I feel sorry for any poor sap that bought a high end DX9 card a year ago as there pc is already usless.
Polaris_choice
Tell me how that isnt marked up? :lol:
And tell me how your 7.1 PS3 audio is better than an independant soundcard, that audiophiles and sound editors use :lol:
UNCHARTED :lol: Plastic people :lol: Fine YOU can prefer it, but its a joke you are suggesting PS3 games run better.
Uncharted runs at 30fps, and Crysis on high running at 720p on a 8800 GT clocks more than 30fps, and makes Uncharted look like dribble. As for multiplats :lol: We all know how great PS3s are with multiplats :lol:
If you hadent realised the 8800 series was out last year. So the logical upgrade would have been to them.
Anyone who got a Dx9 card playing games now proves you wrong :lol:
Ah Sony fanboys are sooo rich in humor :lol:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment