So where are all the killer PC graphics hermits talk about?

well cod4 looks better on the PC (played the PS3 version).

Thing is i got the haze demo, and i like it, but if thats all a console can pull graphically then damn. Played crysis on medium on the same TV and it looks a lot better.

Check out some footage of stalker clear skies. that should blow you away. http://www.steamgames.com/v/index.php?area=app&AppId=5037&cc=GB

This is a serious question, I'm a PC noob. I always read comments about how far ahead PC graphics are than the PS3/360, but aside from Crysis I'm not seeing it. Is a hermits idea of graphical dominance one game (Crysis) coupled with minimal performance improvements on games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock? I ask this because I don't follow PC games closely. Everytime X Play or Gametrailers TV shows a PC exclusive I think the graphics look pretty weak with terrible animations in particular. Then when I come here I always see stuff about how advanced PC graphics are.........and like I said, I just don't see it.FerdMertz

Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, STALKER, what else do you need? ;)

That's because you're quite clearly a fanboy. If you can't see it then maybe you don't know anything about games. Name some of these magical PC exclusives with weak graphics and terrible animation.bobbetybob

There's nothing fanboyish about his post. To be honest, I agree with him. Crysis, of course, is a graphical marvel. Other multiplats certainly look better on PC than their console counterparts, but the difference, to me, is not significant enough to justify the purchase.

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]That's because you're quite clearly a fanboy. If you can't see it then maybe you don't know anything about games. Name some of these magical PC exclusives with weak graphics and terrible animation.Jared2720

There's nothing fanboyish about his post. To be honest, I agree with him. Crysis, of course, is a graphical marvel. Other multiplats certainly look better on PC than their console counterparts, but the difference, to me, is not significant enough to justify the purchase.

No, its just pure fanboyism in his post.

Theres a difference in saying "i dont think the improvements are enough" vs "they just look terrible with bad animations."

Or are you agreeing with the fanboy that PC games just look terrible with animations?

Ha, I've seen Stalker on a high end PC, nothing to write home about and certainly not the light years of advancement I've read about. The other two are RTS games correct? Those games don't impress me. I'm more interested in graphics that try to look realistic than an animated game of risk. RTS games could have polygons out the ass and still look like a game.FerdMertz

Well you've obviously not played either game so you have no right to judge them.

Ha, I've seen Stalker on a high end PC, nothing to write home about and certainly not the light years of advancement I've read about. The other two are RTS games correct? Those games don't impress me. I'm more interested in graphics that try to look realistic than an animated game of risk. RTS games could have polygons out the ass and still look like a game.FerdMertz

What were the specs of the PC, what resolution was it played at, and what settings ?

bobbetybob: Do you even pay attention to yourself? I asked a legitimate question, yet you stomp in and provide no useful information insult me and leave. Yeah, I'm the fanboy, alright.FerdMertz

I can't help but point the irony out in this post.

People give counter claims and your only response is "oh... well... that doesn't count! It didn't look good, even though most reviewers have agreed that they are graphically impressive condering they were rated 9.0+ by most publications and a good PC will run it a resolutions greater than 1080p, with AA, and texture settings higher than a console can do. They don't count though!"

Any multiplat will look better on PC cos you can run it ACTUAL HD with AA/AF and if you're really adventerous download some graphics improvement mods.the_one34

yup, STALKER looks great with mods, and the obvious crysis. World in conflict will look no where near as good on consles. bioshock looks better on pc, CoD4 does and mass effect probably will.

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]That's because you're quite clearly a fanboy. If you can't see it then maybe you don't know anything about games. Name some of these magical PC exclusives with weak graphics and terrible animation.Jared2720

There's nothing fanboyish about his post. To be honest, I agree with him. Crysis, of course, is a graphical marvel. Other multiplats certainly look better on PC than their console counterparts, but the difference, to me, is not significant enough to justify the purchase.

Dude, like I said I'm a PC noob, I don't know what settings or anything Stalker was running on, but my buddy has a nice looking PC that can run Crysis on medium. I guess your right about judging games I've never played but RTS games in general don't impress me graphically. Don't tell me those dungeon crawler games and MMO's don't have terrible animations......they're so stiff and ridgid looking.FerdMertz

Well for all you know your friends "high end" rig was a POS from best Buy running the game on low. Crysis on Medium at 1280 would only take a $600 hand built PC, or maybe a $1000 prebuilt PC.

Dude, like I said I'm a PC noob, I don't know what settings or anything Stalker was running on, but my buddy has a nice looking PC that can run Crysis on medium. I guess your right about judging games I've never played but RTS games in general don't impress me graphically. Don't tell me those dungeon crawler games and MMO's don't have terrible animations......they're so stiff and ridgid looking.FerdMertz

I don't know what your talking about. I was playing GOW2, Halo, COD4, ect. on my friends xbox that was hooked up to a black and white tv. I was like dude these graphics suck they are not even in color. Console graphics are worse than the PCs

Well so far as far as I'm concerned, my original post is dead on. Crysis + improvements to games available on consoles equal graphical dominance. Pull the other one. Makes me think you guys spent so much on you PC set up that you have to convince yourself that it was worth it.FerdMertz

Your ignorance damages my IQ....

Prove me wrong then. Post a screen of a PC exclusive that smokes Assassin's Creed to the extent that you guys are making it out to be.FerdMertz

or we can just post a picture of assasins creed on the PC....which looks much better than the console version....

but its your choice.

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

here you go

Well so far as far as I'm concerned, my original post is dead on. Crysis + improvements to games available on consoles equal graphical dominance. Pull the other one. Makes me think you guys spent so much on you PC set up that you have to convince yourself that it was worth it.FerdMertz

Hah, the intial cost is more yes, but If I was to buy 30 games over 2-3 years ona console it would take away the difference in price and then some.

£17-£23 PC Games

£40 Xbox/PS3 games.

Isn't that a screen from Crysis? Are you trying to prove my point or what? Look, I know that AC and Bioshock look better on PC, but my whole point is hermits make it out like there is a ten mile difference between consoles and PC graphics, and having a superior version of a muliplatform is more like a one mile difference. FerdMertz

you have no actual point? so it would be impossible to prove it.....

unless you are actually trying to argue that PC graphics arent better than console graphics..which just makes you look like a joke.....

here Ill put it into perspective for you....of the games nominated for graphical GOTY....3 were PC exclusive...and the other one had better graphics on the PC.

Ha, I've seen Stalker on a high end PC, nothing to write home about and certainly not the light years of advancement I've read about. The other two are RTS games correct? Those games don't impress me. I'm more interested in graphics that try to look realistic than an animated game of risk. RTS games could have polygons out the ass and still look like a game.FerdMertz

What game doesn't look like a game? Games are still made with lit polygons and now they have pretty shader effects added in. The graphics are definately cleaner on PC, there's no compromises made with texturing lighting and polycount however theres only so much you can do before you recieve diminshing returns. SO yes, this generation is the closest consoles have come to parity with PC graphics but the gap has been widened at the same rate.

Have you seen COH though? you can see the soldiers rifles discharging and they have fingers pulling the triggers, the tanks and explosions are damn realistic too. It looks good enough at ground level to pass for a full FPS and overhead looks even better.

Isn't that a screen from Crysis? Are you trying to prove my point or what? FerdMertz

you said PC exclusive.

STALKER: Clear Skies and Project Offset(it is exclusive to PC) say otherwise.

[QUOTE="FerdMertz"]Ha, I've seen Stalker on a high end PC, nothing to write home about and certainly not the light years of advancement I've read about. The other two are RTS games correct? Those games don't impress me. I'm more interested in graphics that try to look realistic than an animated game of risk. RTS games could have polygons out the ass and still look like a game.ChinoJamesKeene

What game doesn't look like a game? Games are still made with lit polygons and now they have pretty shader effects added in. The graphics are definately cleaner on PC, there's no compromises made with texturing lighting and polycount however theres only so much you can do before you recieve diminshing returns. SO yes, this generation is the closest consoles have come to parity with PC graphics but the gap has been widened at the same rate.

Have you seen COH though? you can see the soldiers rifles discharging and they have fingers pulling the triggers, the tanks and explosions are damn realistic too. It looks good enough at ground level to pass for a full FPS and overhead looks even better.

Besides Crysis, buddy. You guys don't get what I'm saying. I know PC graphics are better. But you guys act like there are 20 PC exclusives that look as good as Crysis, but there is just Crysis.FerdMertz

than what was the point of this tread?

Besides Crysis, buddy. You guys don't get what I'm saying. I know PC graphics are better. But you guys act like there are 20 PC exclusives that look as good as Crysis, but there is just Crysis.FerdMertz

When has anybody said that? Crysis is in a league of its own, everybody knows this :S

Besides Crysis, buddy. You guys don't get what I'm saying. I know PC graphics are better. But you guys act like there are 20 PC exclusives that look as good as Crysis, but there is just Crysis.FerdMertz

You must not realize how hard it is to make a good engine. Why do you think so many games use Unreal Engine 3??? (I hate it)

Any multiplat will look better on PC cos you can run it ACTUAL HD with AA/AF and if you're really adventerous download some graphics improvement mods.the_one34

exactly!! but multiplats are a low blow tho! coz they usually don't put that much effort on PC ports and almost just copy paste things. so mods really help!

[QUOTE="FerdMertz"]This is a serious question, I'm a PC noob. I always read comments about how far ahead PC graphics are than the PS3/360, but aside from Crysis I'm not seeing it. Is a hermits idea of graphical dominance one game (Crysis) coupled with minimal performance improvements on games like Assassin's Creed and Bioshock? I ask this because I don't follow PC games closely. Everytime X Play or Gametrailers TV shows a PC exclusive I think the graphics look pretty weak with terrible animations in particular. Then when I come here I always see stuff about how advanced PC graphics are.........and like I said, I just don't see it.dgsag

Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, STALKER, what else do you need? ;)

Crysis.

Besides Crysis, buddy. You guys don't get what I'm saying. I know PC graphics are better. But you guys act like there are 20 PC exclusives that look as good as Crysis, but there is just Crysis.FerdMertz

Its sad, PC gaming was never about it being a souped up console. However this is what it is becoming. Just console ports with the ability to run the game with high levels of AA and AF. You can't hold a console port as a standard of PC graphics because its just a console port. Generally, devs don't make enough changess to make it much better than the console version graphically. We can get 60fps+, extremely high resolutions and AA/AF. But thats about it. However when you see a game made for PC then you can see the difference in graphics.

Lately though, there hasn't been many games made just for PC that are graphic defining. Except Crysis. This generation has been a strange one, mainly because the Xbox360 is a mini PC. So the PC gets games from it and vice versa. Its a good and bad thing. Good because console gamers get to experience genres that were dominate on PC and vice versa. Bad because PC gets console ports or sometimes very watered down games that don't do well on the PC.

[QUOTE="Jared2720"]

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]That's because you're quite clearly a fanboy. If you can't see it then maybe you don't know anything about games. Name some of these magical PC exclusives with weak graphics and terrible animation.XaosII

There's nothing fanboyish about his post. To be honest, I agree with him. Crysis, of course, is a graphical marvel. Other multiplats certainly look better on PC than their console counterparts, but the difference, to me, is not significant enough to justify the purchase.

No, its just pure fanboyism in his post.

Theres a difference in saying "i dont think the improvements are enough" vs "they just look terrible with bad animations."

Or are you agreeing with the fanboy that PC games just look terrible with animations?

Maybe his post was poorly written but he has some points (unbeknownst to himself probably). I am a manticore but I am heavily involved in PC gaming (graphics being no reason). I build PC's and am typing this on an alienware m15x lappy (hard to hate on alienware laptop with a 15in screen and 8800GTX). But I feel like this generation PC GPU makers have dropped the ball. How long was the 8800GTX king of the hill? I think it was about 1.5 years. Game engines like crysis ate that technology alive and i dont consider the GPU's out today much better than the 8800GTX from a technology standpoint (waiting on r700 or g100 or whatever the new code name is). A lot of games are using older engines like UE3 which is very scalable on consoles. So the graphical differences even with multiplats is pretty small. Plus consoles makers can make games look very well on lower resolutions using a lot of optimization and blurring effects. It wasn't too much into the xbox 3rd year when far cry came out in which PC graphics looked MUCH better...orders of magnitude. Then you had the source engine and Fear. This generation is a lot slower. Plus you have to take into consideration that with every new generation of consoles and PC GPU's, the visual leaps will be smaller and smaller...law of diminishing returns. This is IMO of course....now back to CS source.

Its sad, PC gaming was never about it being a souped up console. However this is what it is becoming. Just console ports with the ability to run the game with high levels of AA and AF. You can't hold a console port as a standard of PC graphics because its just a console port. Generally, devs don't make enough changess to make it much better than the console version graphically. We can get 60fps+, extremely high resolutions and AA/AF. But thats about it. However when you see a game made for PC then you can see the difference in graphics.

Lately though, there hasn't been many games made just for PC that are graphic defining. Except Crysis. This generation has been a strange one, mainly because the Xbox360 is a mini PC. So the PC gets games from it and vice versa. Its a good and bad thing. Good because console gamers get to experience genres that were dominate on PC and vice versa. Bad because PC gets console ports or sometimes very watered down games that don't do well on the PC.

Ramadear

I completely agree and it is similar to my post above...

no one cares for PC. Thats why normal gamers could care less about crysis' graphics. They are too busy enjoying games rather than upgrading hardware.rgame1

thats certainly why WOW has more players than all of XBL combined :) because nobody cares about the PC.

It's called Anti-Aliasing, makes everything look better.slickchris7777

no one cares for PC. Thats why normal gamers could care less about crysis' graphics. They are too busy enjoying games rather than upgrading hardware.rgame1

That's why there's more PC gamers than console gamers.

no one cares for PC. Thats why normal gamers could care less about crysis' graphics. They are too busy enjoying games rather than upgrading hardware.rgame1

That's why hundred of millions of graphics cards are sold each year and about a billion in PC game sales are made, because no one cares. Normal gamers aren't enjoying Crysis' graphics because their crappy 360, Wii or PS3 can't have it. Premium gamers are enjoying it as we speak in many parts of the world.

[QUOTE="slickchris7777"]It's called Anti-Aliasing, makes everything look better.Stevo_the_gamer