Why do people think that optimization...

magically turns 2006 hardware into state-of-the-art gaming rigs?

I think that the problem is that devs are being LAZIER about optimizing the PC version. I say this because most games we see each year has higher system requirements, yet are still playable on the PS3 and 360. The exceptions that I can name are:

• Left 4 Dead 2 runs at a solid ~60fps on most mid-range to current-gen PCs while the framerate takes a huge toll on the Xbox 360 version.
• Devil May Cry 4, which i've played on an Acer Aspyre 7552G-5448, a mid-range laptop, renders everything smoothly. (including the cutscenes that are seen in 30fps on consoles)
• Mass Effect 2, for the most part, runs at a smooth 60fps on most mid-range machines, or on gaming rigs considered state of the art back in 2008.
• Not exactly a piece of software, but the 9800 GT has stood the test of time, even to this day.

I'm guessing people will forever be convinced that optimization's a form of video game sorcery.

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

theuncharted34

It's likely that they may try to cut corners in the console versions of RAGE. If I recall correctly, a very early build of the 360 version ran at 60fps, though I am guessing they'll have to settle for 30fps in favour of higher quality visuals.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

flashn00b

It's likely that they may try to cut corners in the console versions of RAGE. If I recall correctly, a very early build of the 360 version ran at 60fps, though I am guessing they'll have to settle for 30fps in favour of higher quality visuals.

no, RAGE runs at 60fps, while looking Fantastic. like I said, optimization does some amazing things.

[QUOTE="flashn00b"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

theuncharted34

It's likely that they may try to cut corners in the console versions of RAGE. If I recall correctly, a very early build of the 360 version ran at 60fps, though I am guessing they'll have to settle for 30fps in favour of higher quality visuals.

no, RAGE runs at 60fps, while looking Fantastic. like I said, optimization does some amazing things.

U mean sacrifices. The textures look very bland and low rez from up close if you watch the vids. Also the open world design idea with wich they announced the game doesn't seem very open anymore since 90% of the footage is straight corridor stuff in dark tunnels + the low amount of enemies u encounter at one time.

because they paid good money for their game-boxes and there should be no reason why it can't outperform that dumb thing that they use in IT class in middle school

one thing i hate about pc gaming is you never really get the most out of the gpu like you do on consoles. Devs will push every kb of memory on consoles to get the most out of the systems. cant do that on pc when you have a billion combinations of hardware.

one thing i hate about pc gaming is you never really get the most out of the gpu like you do on consoles. Devs will push every kb of memory on consoles to get the most out of the systems. cant do that on pc when you have a billion combinations of hardware.

dontshackzmii

one thing i hate about console gaming is that i cant alt tab and save my screenshots or i cant mod the games or i cant even use paint.

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

one thing i hate about pc gaming is you never really get the most out of the gpu like you do on consoles. Devs will push every kb of memory on consoles to get the most out of the systems. cant do that on pc when you have a billion combinations of hardware.

Firebird-5

one thing i hate about console gaming is that i cant alt tab and save my screenshots or i cant mod the games or i cant even use paint.

kinda going off topic

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

nameless12345

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

the problem is not the power available, there's plenty of that, even if you count the overhead. it's the fact that games aren't targeted towards supa gamen rigz

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

Firebird-5

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

the problem is not the power available, there's plenty of that, even if you count the overhead. it's the fact that games aren't targeted towards supa gamen rigz

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

nameless12345

Ewww linux. Plus DirectX has surpassed OpenGL.

They're being held back because developers are going consoles first, pc second. As DICE and Crytek have proved, when you go PC first (or only) you get incredible visuals. Even Doom 3 with some mods can stand up against games today. Not saying it looks better but it sure as hell ain't a slouch. Same with Battlefield 2 (except it's environments in some levels didn't age well.)

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

Firebird-5

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

Well it's faster and allows for more programing freedom and is open source. What more could you want?

Also there is no way a PC with the same specs as the current consoles would run games as good as they do. You can't do crap with so low amounts of RAM as consoles have on modern PCs.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

dontshackzmii

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

the problem is not the power available, there's plenty of that, even if you count the overhead. it's the fact that games aren't targeted towards supa gamen rigz

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

I agree, Windows is expensive and slow. The real bottleneck of PC gaming and people even think it's good.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

dontshackzmii

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

the problem is not the power available, there's plenty of that, even if you count the overhead. it's the fact that games aren't targeted towards supa gamen rigz

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

please get over that sophomoric vision that opengl is better than directx. i have developed with both (admittedly not taking advantage of the more advanced features in ogl) and while i found ogl to be easier to develop with, right now they are more or less equal, with dx11 pulling out ahead in some cases.

if you just chimed in to say 'opengl looks amazing' then, well, so does directx.

windows doesn't slow your games down as there is no comparative. an os made for gaming would suck for everything else.

Actually it's impressive how much length you can get out of 2005 hardware with a dedicated API. Uncharted 3, Gears 3, even Crysis 2 all rival PC graphics. Sure they are lower resolution and run worse, but the average gamer doesn't care. They still look great on a HDTV. This is why Microsoft and Sony aren't pushing new game consoles, it's pointless right now. Games look great without having to upgrade hardware, engines have been super optimized for the platforms and are pushing out graphics that can still rival the top PC games. Factor in the average gamer doesn't really care that their game has as many polygons and pixels as a PC that costs 3x the console, and there is no point.

In the gaming market there is a point where things are "good enough" for people. System wars and the majority of hardcore PC gamers belive these are far to low of standards while the vast majority of the gaming world thinks they are fine.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

ChubbyGuy40

Ewww linux. Plus DirectX has surpassed OpenGL.

They're being held back because developers are going consoles first, pc second. As DICE and Crytek have proved, when you go PC first (or only) you get incredible visuals. Even Doom 3 with some mods can stand up against games today. Not saying it looks better but it sure as hell ain't a slouch. Same with Battlefield 2 (except it's environments in some levels didn't age well.)

Well then you probably don't realize how PC games could look if they were optimized for high-end PC hardware only and weren't bottlenecked by a resource consuming OS. Let me just say they would look near to the best tech demos.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

nameless12345

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

Well it's faster and allows for more programing freedom and is open source. What more could you want?

Also there is no way a PC with the same specs as the current consoles would run games as good as they do. You can't do crap with so low amounts of RAM as consoles have on modern PCs.

i'm guessing it would perform more or less the same if you run it at the same sub-hd resolutions with no AA as consoles do

that being said i think it would be more expensive anyway (the pc)

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

the problem is not the power available, there's plenty of that, even if you count the overhead. it's the fact that games aren't targeted towards supa gamen rigz

Firebird-5

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

please get over that sophomoric vision that opengl is better than directx. i have developed with both (admittedly not taking advantage of the more advanced features in ogl) and while i found ogl to be easier to develop with, right now they are more or less equal, with dx11 pulling out ahead in some cases.

if you just chimed in to say 'opengl looks amazing' then, well, so does directx.

windows doesn't slow your games down as there is no comparative. an os made for gaming would suck for everything else.

didnt say dx was bad

I agree, Windows is expensive and slow. The real bottleneck of PC gaming and people even think it's good.

nameless12345

Linux market is far too small and there are far too many distros to make it effective. Not to mention the most important thing, drivers, especially audio from what I hear.

I say it's good, because I never enjoyed using Linux.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

nameless12345

Ewww linux. Plus DirectX has surpassed OpenGL.

They're being held back because developers are going consoles first, pc second. As DICE and Crytek have proved, when you go PC first (or only) you get incredible visuals. Even Doom 3 with some mods can stand up against games today. Not saying it looks better but it sure as hell ain't a slouch. Same with Battlefield 2 (except it's environments in some levels didn't age well.)

Well then you probably don't realize how PC games could look if they were optimized for high-end PC hardware only and weren't bottlenecked by a resource consuming OS. Let me just say they would look near to the best tech demos.

The OS has nothing to do with it, the fact that DX11 has to run on 25 different graphic cards all using a bit different of an architecture paired with a different processor and ram has all to do with it.

DX is a standard library meant to run on everything. This is a must when you have the diverse hardware of the PC. If we were to stop upgrading our PC hardware and standardize to one processor, one set amount of ram, one motherboard, and one GPU, we could optimize the hell out of that graphical API and get a ton more performance.

Obviously that's not logical. The OS has nothing to do with it really.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

dontshackzmii

please get over that sophomoric vision that opengl is better than directx. i have developed with both (admittedly not taking advantage of the more advanced features in ogl) and while i found ogl to be easier to develop with, right now they are more or less equal, with dx11 pulling out ahead in some cases.

if you just chimed in to say 'opengl looks amazing' then, well, so does directx.

windows doesn't slow your games down as there is no comparative. an os made for gaming would suck for everything else.

didnt say dx was bad

i did address this event in the post. why even bring it up then

Well then you probably don't realize how PC games could look if they were optimized for high-end PC hardware only and weren't bottlenecked by a resource consuming OS. Let me just say they would look near to the best tech demos.

nameless12345

You mean like how the Samaritan demo was shown off with 3 GTX 580s? It's called being rushed. It has nothing to do with Windows or DX.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well then you probably don't realize how PC games could look if they were optimized for high-end PC hardware only and weren't bottlenecked by a resource consuming OS. Let me just say they would look near to the best tech demos.

ChubbyGuy40

You mean like how the Samaritan demo was shown off with 3 GTX 580s? It's called being rushed. It has nothing to do with Windows or DX.

The OS has so little to do with graphics. It's all about optimization on the hardware you're running it on. Even two DX11 cards have very different architectures and DX11 has to somehow run well on both. You're not going to get insane levels of optimization if you have that.

The OS has so little to do with graphics. It's all about optimization on the hardware you're running it on. Even two DX11 cards have very different architectures and DX11 has to somehow run well on both. You're not going to get insane levels of optimization if you have that.

Wasdie

I know that, but some people think you can magically create great levels of optimization in very little time. Unless you want to wait 5-6 years for the game to come out (Rage,) it just isn't possible with a normal/large development studio.

Quick question; Do developers optimize for DirectX or for the graphics card? (If that makes any sense at all.)

I think a big bonus of consoles is that with all Xbox 360's, they run the same and have the same innards. A developer can just work with that and not have to deal with working for so many different types of hardware people will have. When I have a copy of Fallout 3 I can rest assured that it is running to the best ability the devs could make it on my 360, but on my PC its kind of a hit or miss deal where one game works great and another crashes all the time despite being even lower on the power demanding scale.

I guess its less of an issue when you have a top of the line, overclocked GPU in your expensive system, but that isn't a cure for a new game 2 years later that taxes your system to its limits because the devs couldn't be bothered.

So yeah TC, optimization is a pretty big deal.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well then you probably don't realize how PC games could look if they were optimized for high-end PC hardware only and weren't bottlenecked by a resource consuming OS. Let me just say they would look near to the best tech demos.

ChubbyGuy40

You mean like how the Samaritan demo was shown off with 3 GTX 580s? It's called being rushed. It has nothing to do with Windows or DX.

Do you know how arcade games would look if they made a machine with 3 GTX 580s cards? Here is how arcade games looked back in 1996 when the peak of PC graphics was the blocky Quake 1:

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

Optimization can only go so far until developers realize that PC truely is the next-gen system.

Optimization can only go so far until developers realize that PC truely is the next-gen system.

flashn00b

The PC does not belong into any "gen" because a "new gen" on the PC comes out every few months.

I would say that because the hardware in consoles are limited, they optimize engines and develop new tech. Like adding new tech to solve the AA problem without using too much processing power as an example. Optimizing is the reason why alot of games have more AA, higher polygon count, more and better lighting, higher res textures streamed into the environment, and so on. And alot of the optimizing helps the PC get improved performance as well.

Do you know how arcade games would look if they made a machine with 3 GTX 580s cards? Here is how arcade games looked back in 1996 when the peak of PC graphics was the blocky Quake 1:

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

nameless12345

A tech demo for VF3? That's cool, but the games are totally different. Plus the hardware inside those machines were even more expensive than PC hardware and sometimes specifically made for that cabinet.

And no, none of us would know what it would look like. All we know is that they can push Samaritan which looks far and beyond anything next-gen consoles will do.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

disingenuous at best to say opengl is better. maybe if we were still in the dx7/8 days

the problem is not the power available, there's plenty of that, even if you count the overhead. it's the fact that games aren't targeted towards supa gamen rigz

Firebird-5

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

please get over that sophomoric vision that opengl is better than directx. i have developed with both (admittedly not taking advantage of the more advanced features in ogl) and while i found ogl to be easier to develop with, right now they are more or less equal, with dx11 pulling out ahead in some cases.

if you just chimed in to say 'opengl looks amazing' then, well, so does directx.

windows doesn't slow your games down as there is no comparative. an os made for gaming would suck for everything else.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

Open GL looks amazing windows holds back pc gaming. I would like to see a os made just for gaming. windows adds 120$ to your rig and only slows your games down.

JohnF111

please get over that sophomoric vision that opengl is better than directx. i have developed with both (admittedly not taking advantage of the more advanced features in ogl) and while i found ogl to be easier to develop with, right now they are more or less equal, with dx11 pulling out ahead in some cases.

if you just chimed in to say 'opengl looks amazing' then, well, so does directx.

windows doesn't slow your games down as there is no comparative. an os made for gaming would suck for everything else.

directx is widely used in the gaming industry, and opengl is widely used in the professional graphics industry. there is no difference for all intents and purposes, it's all in the details.

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

theuncharted34

Which basicly says if you optimize your games well enough, you too can have most of your visual effects pre-baked, in a generation that graphically focused on more dynamic and real time effects.

Not that I'm bashing ID, Carmack does some good optimization work and often surprises. But Rage demonstrates that optimization isn't about somehow pulling more performance out of nowhere, but finding performance compromises.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Do you know how arcade games would look if they made a machine with 3 GTX 580s cards? Here is how arcade games looked back in 1996 when the peak of PC graphics was the blocky Quake 1:

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

ChubbyGuy40

A tech demo for VF3? That's cool, but the games are totally different. Plus the hardware inside those machines were even more expensive than PC hardware and sometimes specifically made for that cabinet.

And no, none of us would know what it would look like. All we know is that they can push Samaritan which looks far and beyond anything next-gen consoles will do.

Well my point is still valid because if you put the best PC hardware in a arcade machine or a console you would get amazing things out of it.

And that Samaritan demo looked like nothing jaw-dropping to me and certainly not something the next-gen consoles couldn't do (save for the Wii U).

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

flashn00b

It's likely that they may try to cut corners in the console versions of RAGE. If I recall correctly, a very early build of the 360 version ran at 60fps, though I am guessing they'll have to settle for 30fps in favour of higher quality visuals.

Are you trolling or something?? I don't know what you are trying to prove with this thread. But its a certainty that RAGE runs at 60 fps and looks as good as all the vids we've seen

Well my point is still valid because if you put the best PC hardware in a arcade machine or a console you would get amazing things out of it.

And that Samaritan demo looked like nothing jaw-dropping to me and certainly not something the next-gen consoles couldn't do (save for the Wii U).

nameless12345

So was the hardware in this gen consoles and they haven't been able to catch up to 2007. 1-2 years and they were already beaten.

The Samaritan demo is the best thing we've seen so far. We definitely need games like that on PC because that was absolutely jaw-dropping. I think the Wii-U will be able to do that after Epic ports UE3 to Wii-U. They already love the thing but it obviously wouldn't be on the same scale as PC and some sacrafices would have to be made.

[QUOTE="flashn00b"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

theuncharted34

It's likely that they may try to cut corners in the console versions of RAGE. If I recall correctly, a very early build of the 360 version ran at 60fps, though I am guessing they'll have to settle for 30fps in favour of higher quality visuals.

no, RAGE runs at 60fps, while looking Fantastic. like I said, optimization does some amazing things.

Rage hasn't been released yet.. What your reading into is pub put forward by advertisements... Thats all these previews are for most games.

I once talked to a guy breifly who said that 360 games look better than what they are on the PS3.

I told him I couldn't give a crap about graphics because I wouldn't even see the difference between Bayonetta on the 360 and PS3 if It weren't for me capturing the Demos and playing them side by side on my Computer.

In other words, I don't care if the hardware is from 2005, I just care if the game is good or not.

*goes back to playing Final Fantasy 6 on the Wii*

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

they don't. but optimization does amazing things. *looks at RAGE*

AnnoyedDragon

Which basicly says if you optimize your games well enough, you too can have most of your visual effects pre-baked, in a generation that graphically focused on more dynamic and real time effects.

Not that I'm bashing ID, Carmack does some good optimization work and often surprises. But Rage demonstrates that optimization isn't about somehow pulling more performance out of nowhere, but finding performance compromises.

I agree. Optimization is basically a combination of efficiency and compromise. I think people severely overestimate the efficiency aspect and downplay the compromise. Let's say, for example, there is a room with 20 lights in it in a game. The player only passes through 5 of those light sources. Rather than have 20 dynamic light sources all casting unique shadows, you could simply have the 5 the player is most likely to notice. It's not like developers are magicking up untapped potential, they just have to selectively pick and choose their battles. This ranges from making effective use of LOD to picking whether to use bloom or HDR, to using lower quality textures in areas or running 30FPS instead of 60...

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well my point is still valid because if you put the best PC hardware in a arcade machine or a console you would get amazing things out of it.

And that Samaritan demo looked like nothing jaw-dropping to me and certainly not something the next-gen consoles couldn't do (save for the Wii U).

ChubbyGuy40

So was the hardware in this gen consoles and they haven't been able to catch up to 2007. 1-2 years and they were already beaten.

That's because Crysis was designed for future PC hardware. How much time did take for Crysis to run smoothly on a medium-end mahine maxed out? Three years? I'm not even sure if modern med-end PCs already can run it smoothly in high-res with AA on.

And part of the reason was that Sony put a weak graphics chip in PS3. If PS3 had a GeForce 8800 series graphics chip with more RAM It would easily run Crysis.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

It's quite simple. Modern gaming PCs are like ten times stronger than consoles or even more but you don't see it in games because PC games are bottlenecked by the OS and different cofigurations. If they optimized PC games for a fixed PC hardware and had more efficient OS with better graphics API (read: Linux and OpenGL), we would already be seeing games that looked like that Unreal Engine 3.9 demo Epic showed on the PC.

nameless12345

Ewww linux. Plus DirectX has surpassed OpenGL.

They're being held back because developers are going consoles first, pc second. As DICE and Crytek have proved, when you go PC first (or only) you get incredible visuals. Even Doom 3 with some mods can stand up against games today. Not saying it looks better but it sure as hell ain't a slouch. Same with Battlefield 2 (except it's environments in some levels didn't age well.)

Well then you probably don't realize how PC games could look if they were optimized for high-end PC hardware only and weren't bottlenecked by a resource consuming OS. Let me just say they would look near to the best tech demos.

Your So wrong about Pc's being bottlednecked by resources running with the OS...... Windows 7 has very good memory management , but again games dont use more then 1gb of memory most of the time so how is that an Issue when you have 2gb or or of memory? Consoles are bottlenecked by their memory in everything they do... The problem isnt that Dev's cant create games that look like Tech demos the problem is tech demos push the latest and the greatest while the rest have slower hardware. Also I think forgetting the real fact that 90% of devs are multiplatform anymore which means that have to create an engine that works on the lowest common denominator which tends to be more often then not the consoles.