The cell really is pretty nifty

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

You are basing your beliefs strictly on graphics and what it is pushing. Gameplay, AI everything in between also plays a factor. Like I said on a smaller scale the ps3 is capable of doing things a PC can not. Does a PC have advantages as far as AI in certain cases? Absolutely. But not always. You are talking about games designed for proprietary hardware. That in itself is an advantage. If it weren't why do games always suffer when ported?

I'm not saying the ps3 can push graphics like a PC. The 360 and both the PC have much more sophisticated gpu's. But graphics aren't everything. GPU's are much more sophisticated these days, but you are still basically talking about displaying an image on screen. The PC gpu's are much more advanced as far as features and tools they use to clean up images and how they display them and process them.

An image is one thing. Manipulating that image and how it's done is another.

Look at a game like Infamous. Some people may consider it an ugly game. I don't disagree. The textures aren't that great. The world itself isn't that great. But play the game and tell me that game isn't doing amazing things on your screen. Too many people are stuck on screenshots this gen but play the game. Tell me it doesn't have a different feel to it then anything else.

Celtic_34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwT8XM0AUPM

Um... no.

This is what is so silly about this debate though. That is a tech demo. There are a massive amount of particle effects. But you are the ones saying the ps3 isn't good for gaming. I'm saying for specific tasks it actually is. All those particle effects and destruction is all well and good but where does it fit in in the real world. It's like comparing Lady Gaga to someone who can actually sing.

YAy another 1st person shooter with massive amounts of particle effects. /Yippy.

But yet MLB 2k11 on the PC still doesn't have working scoreboards or a jumbotron that does anything lol.

http://www.vgarabia.com/2011/03/21/crysis-2-vs-killzone-3-the-truth/

There's a nice debate that basically states exactly what I am. I just searched Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 and that's what I came up with. Before thsi was all me. Maybe someone else's reasoning besides mine who actually favors Crysis 2 will reason with you.

That's basically a first person shooter that is playing to the PC's strengths and the ps3 still even holds it's own against the best PC's have to offer even today.

Hence, the cell really is pretty nifty.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwT8XM0AUPM

Um... no.

i5750at4Ghz

This is what is so silly about this debate though. That is a tech demo. There are a massive amount of particle effects. But you are the ones saying the ps3 isn't good for gaming. I'm saying for specific tasks it actually is. All those particle effects and destruction is all well and good but where does it fit in in the real world. It's like comparing Lady Gaga to someone who can actually sing.

YAy another 1st person shooter with massive amounts of particle effects. /Yippy.

But yet MLB 2k11 on the PC still doesn't have working scoreboards or a jumbotron that does anything lol.

It is a tech demo. I never said it wasn't a game. I said the video was a tech demo. BEcause it basically is. He is showing it off. He's standing in front of the same buildings showing off the particle effects.

http://www.vgarabia.com/2011/03/21/crysis-2-vs-killzone-3-the-truth/

There's a nice debate that basically states exactly what I am. I just searched Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 and that's what I came up with. Before thsi was all me. Maybe someone else's reasoning besides mine who actually favors Crysis 2 will reason with you.

Celtic_34

1. Less pop-in and framerate stuttering. Well guess what, on PC neiter of those are even remotely a problem.

2. MLAA, again PCs have this capablity as well, Witcher 2 and Shogun 2 both support it, and the 5/6 series of AMD cards can force MLAA through drivers. The PC also can do things far exceeding MLAA's quality like super sampling, and large amounts of MSAA.

So that didn't help your case at all. Next attempt please?

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

This is what is so silly about this debate though. That is a tech demo. There are a massive amount of particle effects. But you are the ones saying the ps3 isn't good for gaming. I'm saying for specific tasks it actually is. All those particle effects and destruction is all well and good but where does it fit in in the real world. It's like comparing Lady Gaga to someone who can actually sing.

YAy another 1st person shooter with massive amounts of particle effects. /Yippy.

But yet MLB 2k11 on the PC still doesn't have working scoreboards or a jumbotron that does anything lol.

Celtic_34

It is a tech demo. I never said it wasn't a game. I said the video was a tech demo. BEcause it basically is. He is showing it off. He's standing in front of the same buildings showing off the particle effects.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwT8XM0AUPM

Um... no.

ferret-gamer

This is what is so silly about this debate though. That is a tech demo. There are a massive amount of particle effects. But you are the ones saying the ps3 isn't good for gaming. I'm saying for specific tasks it actually is. All those particle effects and destruction is all well and good but where does it fit in in the real world. It's like comparing Lady Gaga to someone who can actually sing.

YAy another 1st person shooter with massive amounts of particle effects. /Yippy.

But yet MLB 2k11 on the PC still doesn't have working scoreboards or a jumbotron that does anything lol.

doubting the power of the cell? blasphemy! :P

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

http://www.vgarabia.com/2011/03/21/crysis-2-vs-killzone-3-the-truth/

There's a nice debate that basically states exactly what I am. I just searched Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 and that's what I came up with. Before thsi was all me. Maybe someone else's reasoning besides mine who actually favors Crysis 2 will reason with you.

ferret-gamer

1. Less pop-in and framerate stuttering. Well guess what, on PC neiter of those are even remotely a problem.

2. MLAA, again PCs have this capablity as well, Witcher 2 and Shogun 2 both support it, and the 5/6 series of AMD cards can force MLAA through drivers. The PC also can do things far exceeding MLAA's quality like super sampling, and large amounts of MSAA.

So that didn't help your case at all. Next attempt please?

What's funny is if you read the comments below most people think he's a fanboy. Because he probably is. The framerate of crysis on the 360 is awful. Most people below think Killzone looks better. So do I.

You are basically talking about a game that is the best the PC has to offer. You are saying it destroys the ps3. I never said the ps3 destroys a PC. You brought up one game that is playing to the strengths I've been talking about that the PC has. It's a huge open world environment and a 1st person shooter and it really doesn't look that much better. An argument can be made for either was my point. Both games do amazing things in different ways.

This is one game you have. The ps3 is how old now? And there is still a debate.

Like I said for any PC game there are just as many on PS3 if not more. I listed them.

Your problem is is that my argument is based in reality. And I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Because it does. Even today. It's proprietary hardware and the games designed specifically for it are some of the best looking games out. As far as numbers what I'm saying is true.

There really isn't this huge advantage to being a PC gamer like you think. But you probably paid how much for it, so you have to justify it somehow.

[QUOTE="adamosmaki"]

Arma 2 1500 A.I. battle

Call me when Ps3 would be able to pull something like this with its 256mb of Ram and a 7800gt without melting

Celtic_34

you are right. The ps3 would melt. But put Killzone on a PC and it would melt.

Uhhhh, no it wouldn't.

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]

[QUOTE="alienlegion"]Somebody mentioned ARMA 2 in comparison to what the PS3 can do. That game is exactly why I stick to consoles. From what I've been told from PC gamers at my job, this game was chock full of bugs that crippled the game out of the gate. I watched the vids, and the character designs are terrible, and their animations are even worse. Just watch and see the facial expressions when people talk. They look like wooden ventriloquist puppets. Meanwhile the PS3 has Heavenly Sword, and that game that looks like its filled with living, breathing people. Both in game and in the cut senes the character animations pretty much destroy everything else I've ever seen on a PC. Sure the detail and foliage destroy the PS3, but games like this destroy PC in terms of expression of emotion and realism where it matters- the characters, not the scenery. Oh and I didn't have to download any patches to make it work. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't graphics king games like Stalker and Crysis ship with a ton of bugs, because that's what I'm seeing when I google (insert awesome PC game here) bugs glitch patch. alienlegion

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

This is what is so silly about this debate though. That is a tech demo. There are a massive amount of particle effects. But you are the ones saying the ps3 isn't good for gaming. I'm saying for specific tasks it actually is. All those particle effects and destruction is all well and good but where does it fit in in the real world. It's like comparing Lady Gaga to someone who can actually sing.

YAy another 1st person shooter with massive amounts of particle effects. /Yippy.

But yet MLB 2k11 on the PC still doesn't have working scoreboards or a jumbotron that does anything lol.

Celtic_34

It is a tech demo. I never said it wasn't a game. I said the video was a tech demo. BEcause it basically is. He is showing it off. He's standing in front of the same buildings showing off the particle effects.

I played through the game with this mod and it is even more amazing than what is shown in those videos. so put a sock in it will you. Heck, i have a PS3 and i love the exclusives on it. But it's sometimes just silly how limited PS3 gameplay can be because of hardware limitations.

If you're so convinced about the PS3 hardware and especially its CPU. Than how come GT5 is only limited to 16 AI opponents? While games like Live for speed, R-Factor and GTR can have as much as 40+ opponents per race?Which btw are even far superior to those of GT5.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

http://www.vgarabia.com/2011/03/21/crysis-2-vs-killzone-3-the-truth/

There's a nice debate that basically states exactly what I am. I just searched Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 and that's what I came up with. Before thsi was all me. Maybe someone else's reasoning besides mine who actually favors Crysis 2 will reason with you.

Celtic_34

1. Less pop-in and framerate stuttering. Well guess what, on PC neiter of those are even remotely a problem.

2. MLAA, again PCs have this capablity as well, Witcher 2 and Shogun 2 both support it, and the 5/6 series of AMD cards can force MLAA through drivers. The PC also can do things far exceeding MLAA's quality like super sampling, and large amounts of MSAA.

So that didn't help your case at all. Next attempt please?

What's funny is if you read the comments below most people think he's a fanboy. Because he probably is. The framerate of crysis on the 360 is awful. Most people below think Killzone looks better. So do I.

You are basically talking about a game that is the best the PC has to offer. You are saying it destroys the ps3. I never said the ps3 destroys a PC. You brought up one game that is playing to the strengths I've been talking about that the PC has. It's a huge open world environment and a 1st person shooter and it really doesn't look that much better. An argument can be made for either was my point. Both games do amazing things in different ways.

This is one game you have. The ps3 is how old now? And there is still a debate.

Like I said for any PC game there are just as many on PS3 if not more. I listed them.

Your problem is is that my argument is based in reality. And I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Because it does. Even today. It's proprietary hardware and the games designed specifically for it are some of the best looking games out. As far as numbers what I'm saying is true.

There really isn't this huge advantage to being a PC gamer like you think. But you probably paid how much for it, so you have to justify it somehow.

That is Crysis 2. Not Crysis 1, Crysis 2 is not the best the PC has to offer. You changed your arument without ever admitting you were wrong. You claimed that the PC would struggle with games like Killzone 3 and MLB the show, you still have given no real argument to support that, and now you are just going with the "I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages." You have yet to show how the PS3 has advantages over the PC, and why the PC would choke with those games.

The other parts of your argument aren't really worth addressing since you obviously don't have a gaming PC to know what you are talking about.

the fact that people still compare modern day games on PC to games released on a 5-6 year old console really says something. how people fail to see that I don't understand, they always have some excuse "consoles are optimized better". does that really matter when PC's are 4-6 times as powerful now? my PC from 3 years ago is probably 2-3 times as good, yet games like killzone or uncharted still look better than what my PC can produce. there's got to be something to say for that.

but wait, this is system wars and people will argue no matter what, so whats the point.

the fact that people still compare modern day games on PC to games released on a 5-6 year old console really says something. how people fail to see that I don't understand, they always have some excuse "consoles are optimized better". does that really matter when PC's are 4-6 times as powerful now? my PC from 3 years ago is probably 2-3 times as good, yet games like killzone or uncharted still look better than what my PC can produce. there's got to be something to say for that.

but wait, this is system wars and people will argue no matter what, so whats the point.

lespaul1919

Rofl, a pc can't do that. Rofl.

can't say much more than that.

A pc can take those crap looking consoles games, make them pc and they will blow your mind and think why did i play that crap. Look at crysis or bf3.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] And that is comparing the 360 version Crysis 2 to Killzone 3. Lets see what they give Killzone 3 over Crysis 2(360):

1. Less pop-in and framerate stuttering. Well guess what, on PC neiter of those are even remotely a problem.

2. MLAA, again PCs have this capablity as well, Witcher 2 and Shogun 2 both support it, and the 5/6 series of AMD cards can force MLAA through drivers. The PC also can do things far exceeding MLAA's quality like super sampling, and large amounts of MSAA.

So that didn't help your case at all. Next attempt please?

ferret-gamer

What's funny is if you read the comments below most people think he's a fanboy. Because he probably is. The framerate of crysis on the 360 is awful. Most people below think Killzone looks better. So do I.

You are basically talking about a game that is the best the PC has to offer. You are saying it destroys the ps3. I never said the ps3 destroys a PC. You brought up one game that is playing to the strengths I've been talking about that the PC has. It's a huge open world environment and a 1st person shooter and it really doesn't look that much better. An argument can be made for either was my point. Both games do amazing things in different ways.

This is one game you have. The ps3 is how old now? And there is still a debate.

Like I said for any PC game there are just as many on PS3 if not more. I listed them.

Your problem is is that my argument is based in reality. And I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Because it does. Even today. It's proprietary hardware and the games designed specifically for it are some of the best looking games out. As far as numbers what I'm saying is true.

There really isn't this huge advantage to being a PC gamer like you think. But you probably paid how much for it, so you have to justify it somehow.

That is Crysis 2. Not Crysis 1, Crysis 2 is not the best the PC has to offer. You changed your arument without ever admitting you were wrong. You claimed that the PC would struggle with games like Killzone 3 and MLB the show, you still have given no real argument to support that, and now you are just going with the "I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages." You have yet to show how the PS3 has advantages over the PC, and why the PC would choke with those games.

The other parts of your argument aren't really worth addressing since you obviously don't have a gaming PC to know what you are talking about.

I did give examples though and explained to the best of my abilities. You are just refusing to or just not understanding what I'm saying. We are talking about propriety hardware and it is designed specifically to handle certain tasks. I used MLB The Show's jumbotron as an example. There is a lot more than that. But play the games. The ps3 is doing some amazing things that PC's or anything else aren't. I'm not saying the PC doesn't have it's advantages either. Having proprietary hardware has it's advantages. It's also designed that way because it has advantages. I already explained why. I don't know how else to explain. I told you that sometimes it's more efficient to have certain processes processing that way.

AS far as gaming it is to an advantage with certain tasks. Are you limited as far as what you can do? Yeah. You aren't going to have a huge open world with massive amounts of particle effects. But play a game like infamous and watch how the game plays and how it cuts between cinematics and gameplay and how fluid it is. There are also advantages as far as AI is concerned when dealing with things like that on a smaller scale. Little Big Planet while not a huge open world still is very impressive in it's own right. There are reasons why arcade style machines are designed differently sometimes and PC's have struggled with certain genres like fighting games in the past.. The way they are designed and processed isn't as efficient.

STreet Fighter IV is one of the few fightings games designed on PC Architecture. Is there a shift going on this gen? Maybe, but in the past fighting games were usually designed for proprietary hardware and struggled with PC's.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

the fact that people still compare modern day games on PC to games released on a 5-6 year old console really says something. how people fail to see that I don't understand, they always have some excuse "consoles are optimized better". does that really matter when PC's are 4-6 times as powerful now? my PC from 3 years ago is probably 2-3 times as good, yet games like killzone or uncharted still look better than what my PC can produce. there's got to be something to say for that.

but wait, this is system wars and people will argue no matter what, so whats the point.

PC_Otter

Yeah, way to go when you've got a 50 million budget behind it.

I love GT5 but every time i watch a replay of a race i can't help but be annoyed with the low resolution.

We agree with the fact PS3 games are uniquely and well designed, however we do not agree that PC games are worse and cannot handle PS3 games. That's like saying an oil tanker could not hold a Yacht crew

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

the fact that people still compare modern day games on PC to games released on a 5-6 year old console really says something. how people fail to see that I don't understand, they always have some excuse "consoles are optimized better". does that really matter when PC's are 4-6 times as powerful now? my PC from 3 years ago is probably 2-3 times as good, yet games like killzone or uncharted still look better than what my PC can produce. there's got to be something to say for that.

but wait, this is system wars and people will argue no matter what, so whats the point.

Heyhuub

Yeah, way to go when you've got a 50 million budget behind it.

I love GT5 but every time i watch a replay of a race i can't help but be annoyed with the low resolution.

First of all TC, do you have a high end PC?

Second - I'm playing Crysis 2 ATM and it blows KZ3 out of the water (last two shooters I played).

First of all TC, do you have a high end PC?

Second - I'm playing Crysis 2 ATM and it blows KZ3 out of the water (last two shooters I played).

KiZZo1

I've actually always been a PC gamer and build my own custom PC's for gaming. Until this gen I didn't really see the benefit. Last gen I ended up playing most games on a console as well. I didn't think there was that big a difference. This gen even moreso. I figured consoles are cheaper and are at an advantage in enough ways.

I built my own gaming systems for over 20 years.

apparently more people who play games are in need of glasses

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

What's funny is if you read the comments below most people think he's a fanboy. Because he probably is. The framerate of crysis on the 360 is awful. Most people below think Killzone looks better. So do I.

You are basically talking about a game that is the best the PC has to offer. You are saying it destroys the ps3. I never said the ps3 destroys a PC. You brought up one game that is playing to the strengths I've been talking about that the PC has. It's a huge open world environment and a 1st person shooter and it really doesn't look that much better. An argument can be made for either was my point. Both games do amazing things in different ways.

This is one game you have. The ps3 is how old now? And there is still a debate.

Like I said for any PC game there are just as many on PS3 if not more. I listed them.

Your problem is is that my argument is based in reality. And I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages. Because it does. Even today. It's proprietary hardware and the games designed specifically for it are some of the best looking games out. As far as numbers what I'm saying is true.

There really isn't this huge advantage to being a PC gamer like you think. But you probably paid how much for it, so you have to justify it somehow.

Celtic_34

That is Crysis 2. Not Crysis 1, Crysis 2 is not the best the PC has to offer. You changed your arument without ever admitting you were wrong. You claimed that the PC would struggle with games like Killzone 3 and MLB the show, you still have given no real argument to support that, and now you are just going with the "I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages." You have yet to show how the PS3 has advantages over the PC, and why the PC would choke with those games.

The other parts of your argument aren't really worth addressing since you obviously don't have a gaming PC to know what you are talking about.

I did give examples though and explained to the best of my abilities. You are just refusing to or just not understanding what I'm saying. We are talking about propriety hardware and it is designed specifically to handle certain tasks. I used MLB The Show's jumbotron as an example. There is a lot more than that. But play the games. The ps3 is doing some amazing things that PC's or anything else aren't. I'm not saying the PC doesn't have it's advantages either. Having proprietary hardware has it's advantages. It's also designed that way because it has advantages. I already explained why. I don't know how else to explain. I told you that sometimes it's more efficient to have certain processes processing that way. AS far as gaming it is to an advantage with certain tasks. Are you limited as far as what you can do? Yeah. You aren't going to have a huge open world with massive amounts of particle effects. But play a game like infamous and watch how the game plays and how it cuts between cinematics and gameplay and how fluid it is. There are also advantages as far as AI is concerned when dealing things like that on a smaller scale. Little Big Planet while not a huge open world still is very impressive in it's own right. There are reasons why arcade style machines are designed differently sometimes and PC's have struggled with certain genres like fighting games in the past.. The way they are designed and processed isn't as efficient.

STreet Fighter IV is one of the few fightings games designed on PC Architecture. Is there a shift going on this gen? Maybe but in the past fighting games were usually designed for proprietary hardware and struggled with PC's.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

That is Crysis 2. Not Crysis 1, Crysis 2 is not the best the PC has to offer. You changed your arument without ever admitting you were wrong. You claimed that the PC would struggle with games like Killzone 3 and MLB the show, you still have given no real argument to support that, and now you are just going with the "I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty and has it's advantages." You have yet to show how the PS3 has advantages over the PC, and why the PC would choke with those games.

The other parts of your argument aren't really worth addressing since you obviously don't have a gaming PC to know what you are talking about.

ferret-gamer

I did give examples though and explained to the best of my abilities. You are just refusing to or just not understanding what I'm saying. We are talking about propriety hardware and it is designed specifically to handle certain tasks. I used MLB The Show's jumbotron as an example. There is a lot more than that. But play the games. The ps3 is doing some amazing things that PC's or anything else aren't. I'm not saying the PC doesn't have it's advantages either. Having proprietary hardware has it's advantages. It's also designed that way because it has advantages. I already explained why. I don't know how else to explain. I told you that sometimes it's more efficient to have certain processes processing that way. AS far as gaming it is to an advantage with certain tasks. Are you limited as far as what you can do? Yeah. You aren't going to have a huge open world with massive amounts of particle effects. But play a game like infamous and watch how the game plays and how it cuts between cinematics and gameplay and how fluid it is. There are also advantages as far as AI is concerned when dealing things like that on a smaller scale. Little Big Planet while not a huge open world still is very impressive in it's own right. There are reasons why arcade style machines are designed differently sometimes and PC's have struggled with certain genres like fighting games in the past.. The way they are designed and processed isn't as efficient.

STreet Fighter IV is one of the few fightings games designed on PC Architecture. Is there a shift going on this gen? Maybe but in the past fighting games were usually designed for proprietary hardware and struggled with PC's.

Are you serious? Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Resistance 3, Journey, MLB THe Show, Motorstorm Apocalypse, The Last Guardian, GT5, I'm actually leaving out some games. But list me 20 games on the pc that are all better than that if it's so much better. All I said was the ps3 has advantages and it does. All I said was the ps3 was pretty nifty and has advantages. People are telling me oh now I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty when the title of this thread is that.

You are saying the PC is so much better and can blow away anything the PS3 can. Please explain why?

Oh but I forgot you have a modded version of Crysis. And I'm the delusional person who spent $140 since I got $160 in gift cards from Target when I bought it. What did you pay for your PC? I'm delusional? You are giving away your hard earned money for what?

Oh but I forgot you have a modded version of Crysis. And I'm the delusional person who spent $140 since I got $160 in gift cards from Target when I bought it. What did you pay for your PC? I'm delusional? You are giving away your hard earned money for what?

Celtic_34

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Oh but I forgot you have a modded version of Crysis. And I'm the delusional person who spent $140 since I got $160 in gift cards from Target when I bought it. What did you pay for your PC? I'm delusional? You are giving away your hard earned money for what?

agpickle

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What I'm saying is people are talking to me like i'm a moron in this thread when it might be the other way around. All I said was the ps3 is pretty nifty and told I was this that and this.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I did give examples though and explained to the best of my abilities. You are just refusing to or just not understanding what I'm saying. We are talking about propriety hardware and it is designed specifically to handle certain tasks. I used MLB The Show's jumbotron as an example. There is a lot more than that. But play the games. The ps3 is doing some amazing things that PC's or anything else aren't. I'm not saying the PC doesn't have it's advantages either. Having proprietary hardware has it's advantages. It's also designed that way because it has advantages. I already explained why. I don't know how else to explain. I told you that sometimes it's more efficient to have certain processes processing that way. AS far as gaming it is to an advantage with certain tasks. Are you limited as far as what you can do? Yeah. You aren't going to have a huge open world with massive amounts of particle effects. But play a game like infamous and watch how the game plays and how it cuts between cinematics and gameplay and how fluid it is. There are also advantages as far as AI is concerned when dealing things like that on a smaller scale. Little Big Planet while not a huge open world still is very impressive in it's own right. There are reasons why arcade style machines are designed differently sometimes and PC's have struggled with certain genres like fighting games in the past.. The way they are designed and processed isn't as efficient.

STreet Fighter IV is one of the few fightings games designed on PC Architecture. Is there a shift going on this gen? Maybe but in the past fighting games were usually designed for proprietary hardware and struggled with PC's.

Celtic_34

Are you serious? Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Resistance 3, Journey, MLB THe Show, Motorstorm Apocalypse, The Last Guardian, GT5, I'm actually leaving out some games. But list me 20 games on the pc that are all better than that if it's so much better. All I said was the ps3 has advantages and it does.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

I did give examples though and explained to the best of my abilities. You are just refusing to or just not understanding what I'm saying. We are talking about propriety hardware and it is designed specifically to handle certain tasks. I used MLB The Show's jumbotron as an example. There is a lot more than that. But play the games. The ps3 is doing some amazing things that PC's or anything else aren't. I'm not saying the PC doesn't have it's advantages either. Having proprietary hardware has it's advantages. It's also designed that way because it has advantages. I already explained why. I don't know how else to explain. I told you that sometimes it's more efficient to have certain processes processing that way. AS far as gaming it is to an advantage with certain tasks. Are you limited as far as what you can do? Yeah. You aren't going to have a huge open world with massive amounts of particle effects. But play a game like infamous and watch how the game plays and how it cuts between cinematics and gameplay and how fluid it is. There are also advantages as far as AI is concerned when dealing things like that on a smaller scale. Little Big Planet while not a huge open world still is very impressive in it's own right. There are reasons why arcade style machines are designed differently sometimes and PC's have struggled with certain genres like fighting games in the past.. The way they are designed and processed isn't as efficient.

STreet Fighter IV is one of the few fightings games designed on PC Architecture. Is there a shift going on this gen? Maybe but in the past fighting games were usually designed for proprietary hardware and struggled with PC's.

Celtic_34

Are you serious? Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Resistance 3, Journey, MLB THe Show, Motorstorm Apocalypse, The Last Guardian, GT5, I'm actually leaving out some games. But list me 20 games on the pc that are all better than that if it's so much better. All I said was the ps3 has advantages and it does. All I said was the ps3 was pretty nifty and has advantages. People are telling me oh now I'm saying the ps3 is pretty nifty when the title of this thread is that.

You are saying the PC is so much better and can blow away anything the PS3 can. Please explain why?

You are the one who brought up the technical advantages of those games. So please do start with the technical advantages those games offer over pc games.

For example as in my previouse post, how come GT5 can only have 16 opponents while 5 year old games like R-Factor can have up to 40 AI opponents. Especially when the PS3 has such an advanced cpu.

[QUOTE="lespaul1919"]

the fact that people still compare modern day games on PC to games released on a 5-6 year old console really says something. how people fail to see that I don't understand, they always have some excuse "consoles are optimized better". does that really matter when PC's are 4-6 times as powerful now? my PC from 3 years ago is probably 2-3 times as good, yet games like killzone or uncharted still look better than what my PC can produce. there's got to be something to say for that.

but wait, this is system wars and people will argue no matter what, so whats the point.

PC_Otter

E8400
4GB RAM
HD 4850

[QUOTE="alienlegion"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] ArmA is a warfare simulator. While on the basic action level it's somewhat badly polished, it's the overall encompassing experience of conducting operations in a simulator-esque environment with both land, air, and sea forces that makes it satisfying for players. While ragdoll animations make look cool, it's of little consequence in a simulator like ArmA. It's not the same game as Call of Duty, Killzone, or even Battlefield.

Comparing ArmA to CoD, is like comparing Lock On: Modern Air Combat/Flaming Cliffs 2 to Ace Combat. It's a ridiculous proposition, and at the end of the day, I much prefer my experience with Lock On. You have no idea how stressful piloting a combat aircraft in the heat of battle is until you play a sim with full realism.

PC_Otter

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] A jumbotron and seamless switching from cutscene to gameplay? Are you serious? ferret-gamer

Are you serious? Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Resistance 3, Journey, MLB THe Show, Motorstorm Apocalypse, The Last Guardian, GT5, I'm actually leaving out some games. But list me 20 games on the pc that are all better than that if it's so much better. All I said was the ps3 has advantages and it does.

All of those games are on the ps3, minus 3 of them. So where is the PC at a huge advantage. I did explain to you to the best of my abilities. Do you want me to get into the technical aspects of why a central core with 7 spe's, low bandwith and the RSX coupled with blu-ray is designed for games and at an advantage with certain things? I explained in general. The cell is also using vector processing. PC architecture is scalar to my knowledge. I could be wrong, but both have advantages and disadvantages.

Oh but I forgot you have a modded version of Crysis. And I'm the delusional person who spent $140 since I got $160 in gift cards from Target when I bought it. What did you pay for your PC? I'm delusional? You are giving away your hard earned money for what?

Celtic_34

You get what you pay for.

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

Celtic_34

The Cell is trash and is the reason this entire generation has been held up in multiplatform titles. Once devs started giving a crap about getting games to work on PS3, all games have gotten worse. PS3 exclusives are illusions, on-rails, short, heavily scripted and highly linear. That's why they look the way they do. Too bad devs didn't stoop to using this kind of development on 360 years ago so you idiots could see that even Original Xbox could handle these types of graphics when the games are basically motion pictures where you press a button here and there.

Ps3 games are litteraly doing nothing. It's all a large, scripted cutscene where you are in control of very little. Still with blurry, vaseline-ish textures and jaggies like that of PS1. You idiots really have been scammed and duped to the point that you forgot how to use your brains this gen.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Are you serious? Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Resistance 3, Journey, MLB THe Show, Motorstorm Apocalypse, The Last Guardian, GT5, I'm actually leaving out some games. But list me 20 games on the pc that are all better than that if it's so much better. All I said was the ps3 has advantages and it does.

Celtic_34

All of those games are on the ps3, minus 3 of them. So where is the PC at a huge advantage. I did explain to you to the best of my abilities. Do you want me to get into the technical aspects of why a central core with 7 spe's, low bandwith and the RSX coupled with blu-ray is designed for games and at an advantage with certain things? I explained in general. The cell is also using vector processing. PC architecture is scalar to my knowledge. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

A PC would struggle with games like Killzone, Uncharted, MLB THe Show even. Games like Infamous. Blu-Ray coupled with the cell is also a huge advantage as far as media processing.

Celtic_34

Do you realize that if this games was on pc will be like 1920x1200, 60fps, more AA AF, higher texture resolution, better shadows/lighting, bigger view distance, larger fov etc.

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Oh but I forgot you have a modded version of Crysis. And I'm the delusional person who spent $140 since I got $160 in gift cards from Target when I bought it. What did you pay for your PC? I'm delusional? You are giving away your hard earned money for what?

Celtic_34

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

What I'm saying is people are talking to me like i'm a moron in this thread when it might be the other way around. All I said was the ps3 is pretty nifty and told I was this that and this.

There's something called Moore's law. Roughly, it's a prediction that has been fulfilled now for decades and it states that the number of transistors in processors (which is very closely related to performance) doubles every two years (or sometimes given as 18 months). This is achieved by using ever smaller and smaller transistors. Frequency and number of cores is far more inaccurate assessment of the performance of a processor than the number of transistors in it. This is because transistors can be used in a lot of different ways to make the processor work faster (one example - cache memory) - it's not only about cores!

Exhibit one:

Observe how the Cell is an order of magnitude slower than the fastest processors today. Note also that the y-axis is logarithmic - (a small distance means a big difference).

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

osan0

What I'm saying is people are talking to me like i'm a moron in this thread when it might be the other way around. All I said was the ps3 is pretty nifty and told I was this that and this.

Then why does MLB The Show looks so much better than MLB 2k11? Why does Grand Turismo look better than Forza? You'd think a baseball game or Racing game would be places where they are trying to show off graphics.

You can argue Forza has this and that and is a better game. But if you compare cars GTA5 is more photorealistic.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Are you serious? Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, Resistance 3, Journey, MLB THe Show, Motorstorm Apocalypse, The Last Guardian, GT5, I'm actually leaving out some games. But list me 20 games on the pc that are all better than that if it's so much better. All I said was the ps3 has advantages and it does.

Celtic_34

All of those games are on the ps3, minus 3 of them. So where is the PC at a huge advantage. I did explain to you to the best of my abilities. Do you want me to get into the technical aspects of why a central core with 7 spe's, low bandwith and the RSX coupled with blu-ray is designed for games and at an advantage with certain things? I explained in general. The cell is also using vector processing. PC architecture is scalar to my knowledge. I could be wrong, but both have advantages and disadvantages.

minus 3 of them? i see 8 :? anyway I will say it again, you need to understand that a pc from 2006 is more power full than ps3, the sooner you realize this the better.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

c49thaine

The Cell is trash and is the reason this entire generation has been held up in multiplatform titles. Once devs started giving a crap about getting games to work on PS3, all games have gotten worse. PS3 exclusives are illusions, on-rails, short, heavily scripted and highly linear. That's why they look the way they do. Too bad devs didn't stoop to using this kind of development on 360 years ago so you idiots could see that even Original Xbox could handle these types of graphics when the games are basically motion pictures where you press a button here and there.

PS3 games are litteraly doing nothing. It's all a large, scripted cutscene where you are in control of very little. Still with blurry, vaseline-ish textures and jaggies like that of PS1. You idiots really have been scammed and duped to the point that you forgot how to use your brains this gen.

Now this is something that every Cow should hear. Good job! 8)

[QUOTE="osan0"][QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

What I'm saying is people are talking to me like i'm a moron in this thread when it might be the other way around. All I said was the ps3 is pretty nifty and told I was this that and this.

Celtic_34

Then why does MLB The Show looks so much better than MLB 2k11? Why does Grand Turismo look better than Forza? You'd think a baseball game or Racing game would be places where they are trying to show off graphics.

You can argue Forza has this and that and is a better game. But if you compare cars GTA5 is more photorealistic.

Forza 4 > GT5 in the graphics department

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]

[QUOTE="alienlegion"] Hey do me the courtesy of bold facing the part in my original post where I directly compared ARMA 2 to COD? Oh, can't find it? That's because you made it up. I guess since you didn't have an argument to win here you had to try and make one up.alienlegion

The Cell is not some magic super-chip that's going to somehow always outperform huge quad-core PC CPU's with massive cache's. It has some interesting and unique design decisions that could definitely allow it to come on top vs. a PC CPU in a small subsetof cases matching a certain criteria (mainly worksets requiring high ALU throughput on completely coherent data sets), but most definitely not in the general case.

But I suppose this is System Wars where hyperbole is king, which means that I'm wrong and it's either a super computer on a chip, or it's completely useless piece of junk that causes cancer.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

Am playing the Infamous and Motorstorm demos. I know fanboys will disagree but I don't think PC's or the 360 can do this. Killzone is the same thing. The cell is different than normal PC architecture where it can handle many tasks at once why you see so much going on on screen. It's a different architecture much like RISC processors back in the day. It excels at certain kinds of gaming. Coupled with Blu-Ray and the ability to stream large amounts of media that can be incorporated into games. Yes standard PC architecture with a great GPU and loads of bandwith also has a huge advantage when pumping lots of textures in a huge open world environment. But it reminds me of back in the day when playing games on a game machine like an Amiga and then the PC came into the mix.

I've said this before and been told I have no clue what I'm talking about but I'm actually correct. The spe's in the cell allow it to handle many processes at once. Why you see certain special effects in games like Killzone, Infamous, Motorstorm, Uncharted that you don't see elsewhere. Is it as strong with certain textures? No.

Is it great for gaming? Yes

c49thaine

The Cell is trash and is the reason this entire generation has been held up in multiplatform titles. Once devs started giving a crap about getting games to work on PS3, all games have gotten worse. PS3 exclusives are illusions, on-rails, short, heavily scripted and highly linear. That's why they look the way they do. Too bad devs didn't stoop to using this kind of development on 360 years ago so you idiots could see that even Original Xbox could handle these types of graphics when the games are basically motion pictures where you press a button here and there.

Ps3 games are litteraly doing nothing. It's all a large, scripted cutscene where you are in control of very little. Still with blurry, vaseline-ish textures and jaggies like that of PS1. You idiots really have been scammed and duped to the point that you forgot how to use your brains this gen.

It's nice that you think I've been duped. I've basically stated that the PC can push more graphics because of it's bandwith and it's more powerful GPU. If you are talking about pushing graphics in a huge open and interactive world the PC trumps the ps3. But that's where you are mistaken. Is I'm not duped. I'm basically calling it as I see it. I never said the ps3 was better. I never said it was more powerful.

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

There's something called Moore's law. Roughly, it's a prediction that has been fulfilled now for decades and it states that the number of transistors in processors (which is very closely related to performance) doubles every two years (or sometimes given as 18 months). This is achieved by using ever smaller and smaller transistors. Frequency and number of cores is far more inaccurate assessment of the performance of a processor than the number of transistors in it. This is because transistors can be used in a lot of different ways to make the processor work faster (one example - cache memory) - it's not only about cores!

Exhibit one:

Observe how the Cell is an order of magnitude slower than the fastest processors today. Note also that the y-axis is logarithmic - (a small distance means a big difference).

KiZZo1

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34

Because someone owns the IP rights to those games. Those are Sony-exclusive and will never see the light of day on another platform. Its not the hardware allowing them to do this. Its publishers saying they can only create this game on this platform.

[QUOTE="Celtic_34"]

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

ChubbyGuy40

Because someone owns the IP rights to those games. Those are Sony-exclusive and will never see the light of day on another platform. Its not the hardware allowing them to do this. Its publishers saying they can only create this game on this platform.

I know that. But why isn't another develop makinh them. I gave a list of 10 games on the ps3 that look great. I was given a list of games back. only 3 of which aren't on the ps3. What I'm saying is if the PC is so much better why don't they have their own developers making games that look better?

It's nice that you think I've been duped. I've basically stated that the PC can push more graphics because of it's bandwith and it's more powerful GPU. If you are talking about pushing graphics in a huge open and interactive world the PC trumps the ps3. But that's where you are mistaken. Is I'm not duped. I'm basically calling it as I see it. I never said the ps3 was better. I never said it was more powerful.

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34

I'm guessing it'sbecause they are PS3 exclusives. :|

It's nice that you think I've been duped. I've basically stated that the PC can push more graphics because of it's bandwith and it's more powerful GPU. If you are talking about pushing graphics in a huge open and interactive world the PC trumps the ps3. But that's where you are mistaken. Is I'm not duped. I'm basically calling it as I see it. I never said the ps3 was better. I never said it was more powerful.

You are basically telling me as fact there is nothing the pc can't do that the ps3 does. Then why isn't it? Why in a lot of cases the ps3 is doing more? Is it bceause Sony has these exclusive rights and won't let them make these games and have paid these developers off?

So you are saying Killzone 3 or MLB The Show could be done and it would look exactly the same on the PC. Then why isn't it being done by someone else?

Celtic_34