Why would anyone not own a gaming PC?

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

WhenCicadasCry

Every PC exclusive can be played on a 360/PS3 if optimized for the system. Played =/= maxed out and since Crysis 2 is on both, this proves that it can be done.

Crytek openingly said Crysis could not be ported, period. Napeleon Total War, no way. Stalker, and it's A-Life AI? No way.

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

I mean tech wise. Some PC exclusives can't be ported to the consoles. :P

WhenCicadasCry

Every PC exclusive can be played on a 360/PS3 if optimized for the system. Played =/= maxed out and since Crysis 2 is on both, this proves that it can be done.

Crytek openingly said Crysis could not be ported, period. Napeleon Total War, no way. Stalker, and it's A-Life AI? No way.

Lol a total war game on a console.... Not only will it be unplayable without mouse and keyboard, it probably won't even run with big battles (which is what TW is all about). BTW, I'm not suggesting that you actually want it to be on console, I didn't misunderstand you.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

TheSterls

Post pics then. And yes they do have higher settings.

You are all talk and no show.

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

Ok found the button to see it and it wasin low res anyway.

ANd lol the PC version looks better than that.

Heck Mass Effect 1 in my screenshot looked smoother.

Once I beat Mass Effect 1 again I will try get some screenshots of number 2.

I know the consoles were not running Mass Effect 1 on ultra high settings like the PC.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

04dcarraher

We don't even know what setting or what PC they were using...

They use the exact same quality assets though your claims are based off image quality settings wich is the only diffrence and it is hardly a pixilated miss you must play all your games on a 300 dollar monitor.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

Every PC exclusive can be played on a 360/PS3 if optimized for the system. Played =/= maxed out and since Crysis 2 is on both, this proves that it can be done.

tempest91

Crytek openingly said Crysis could not be ported, period. Napeleon Total War, no way. Stalker, and it's A-Life AI? No way.

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

LOL. You have a strange definition of "mid level PC"

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Post pics then. And yes they do have higher settings.

You are all talk and no show.

Hakkai007

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

Ok found the button to see it and it wasin low res anyway.

ANd lol the PC version looks better than that.

Heck Mass Effect 1 in my screenshot looked smoother.

Once I beat Mass Effect 1 again I will try get some screenshots of number 2.

I know the consoles were not running Mass Effect 1 on ultra high settings like the PC.

Number 2 looks better then 1 anyways and yes those are the max settings heres some more proof for you

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tech-comparison-resident-evil-5-pc-article

However, perhaps the biggest surprise in putting together our comparison is that the Xbox 360 version is running at the PC's equivalent of having virtually every setting at the absolute maximum (anti-aliasing and resolution apart, obviously).

In regards to RE5.

So please stop your babble that is stone cold proof and all your claims of superior visuals come to IMAGE QUALITY SETTINGS. Please know the diffrence between image quality and assets .

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

We don't even know what setting or what PC they were using...

TheSterls

They use the exact same quality assets though your claims are based off image quality settings wich is the only diffrence and it is hardly a pixilated miss you must play all your games on a 300 dollar monitor.

You still didn't tell me, what setting and what PC they were using... and BTW, a 300$ has higher resolution then HDTV.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

TheSterls

Ok found the button to see it and it wasin low res anyway.

ANd lol the PC version looks better than that.

Heck Mass Effect 1 in my screenshot looked smoother.

Once I beat Mass Effect 1 again I will try get some screenshots of number 2.

I know the consoles were not running Mass Effect 1 on ultra high settings like the PC.

Number 2 looks better then 1 anyways and yes those are the max settings heres some more proof for you

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tech-comparison-resident-evil-5-pc-article

However, perhaps the biggest surprise in putting together our comparison is that the Xbox 360 version is running at the PC's equivalent of having virtually every setting at the absolute maximum (anti-aliasing and resolution apart, obviously).

In regards to RE5.

So please stop your babble that is stone cold proof and all your claims of superior visuals come to IMAGE QUALITY SETTINGS. Please know the diffrence between image quality and assets .

Looks better on my PC.

And no Mass Effect on the consoles were not using the ultra high settings of the PC version.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Ok found the button to see it and it wasin low res anyway.

ANd lol the PC version looks better than that.

Heck Mass Effect 1 in my screenshot looked smoother.

Once I beat Mass Effect 1 again I will try get some screenshots of number 2.

I know the consoles were not running Mass Effect 1 on ultra high settings like the PC.

Hakkai007

Number 2 looks better then 1 anyways and yes those are the max settings heres some more proof for you

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tech-comparison-resident-evil-5-pc-article

However, perhaps the biggest surprise in putting together our comparison is that the Xbox 360 version is running at the PC's equivalent of having virtually every setting at the absolute maximum (anti-aliasing and resolution apart, obviously).

In regards to RE5.

So please stop your babble that is stone cold proof and all your claims of superior visuals come to IMAGE QUALITY SETTINGS. Please know the diffrence between image quality and assets .

Looks better on my PC.

And no Mass Effect on the consoles were not using the ultra high settings of the PC version.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

DMC4, RE5, SC.C , ME2 are several games where the console version uses the exact same texture assets at max settins as the pc version. You could not push the assets above the ones on consoles with a 6600 or 7800gt on any current game and get a playable framerate. And L4D was yet again another pc port, it wasnt even released on the PS3 and GeoW on the 360 looks better then the pc running it on medium settingsPERIOD so how is a 6600gt going to outperfrom that. You act like ALL games are using gimped settings and they dont.

Actually DMC4, RE5 and ME2 uses different settings. Not sure about Splinter Cell Conviction since I haven't played it.

Also why are you talking about the 6600gt? When the 360 came out the 7800 series was already out for many months.

And if I lowered the settings as much as the consoles do I could push a 7800gt just as well.

Here is GeoW on medium settings on the PC which still looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Mass Effect on Pc looks alot better then consoles just from the resolution and extra filtering. It goes from a low resolution pixelated mess to be clean and crisp.Bebi_vegeta

They use the exact same quality assets though your claims are based off image quality settings wich is the only diffrence and it is hardly a pixilated miss you must play all your games on a 300 dollar monitor.

You still didn't tell me, what setting and what PC they were using... and BTW, a 300$ has higher resolution then HDTV.

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

http://www.videogameszone.de/Mass-Effect-2-Xbox360-219954/Bilder/Mass-Effect-2-Exklusive-Screenshots-vergleichen-Xbox-360-mit-PC-Version-Update-Zehn-weitere-Vergleichs-Bilder-703530/galerie/1242530/

No i state stone cold facts and you refuse to beleive them even though the proof is right in your face.

TheSterls

Ok found the button to see it and it wasin low res anyway.

ANd lol the PC version looks better than that.

Heck Mass Effect 1 in my screenshot looked smoother.

Once I beat Mass Effect 1 again I will try get some screenshots of number 2.

I know the consoles were not running Mass Effect 1 on ultra high settings like the PC.

Number 2 looks better then 1 anyways and yes those are the max settings heres some more proof for you

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/tech-comparison-resident-evil-5-pc-article

However, perhaps the biggest surprise in putting together our comparison is that the Xbox 360 version is running at the PC's equivalent of having virtually every setting at the absolute maximum (anti-aliasing and resolution apart, obviously).

In regards to RE5.

So please stop your babble that is stone cold proof and all your claims of superior visuals come to IMAGE QUALITY SETTINGS. Please know the diffrence between image quality and assets .

Just from looking at the RE5 screenshots the PC version has a farther draw distance and better textures.

The PC version looks a lot less blurry.

But let me install my RE5 again and post my own screenshots which are the ones I can trust.

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

tempest91

My PC is considered a low entry by todays standards, and it ****s upon the consoles. I just can't see a console being able to handle Total Wars huge battles. It's like porting Dead Rising to the Wii.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

They use the exact same quality assets though your claims are based off image quality settings wich is the only diffrence and it is hardly a pixilated miss you must play all your games on a 300 dollar monitor.

TheSterls

You still didn't tell me, what setting and what PC they were using... and BTW, a 300$ has higher resolution then HDTV.

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

The L227WTG monitor has awesome colors and contrast with a nice bright glossy screen.

For screenshots of PC games, look no further:

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=383744

Also has an epic Resident Evil 5 screenshot with a mod (a free mod).

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Actually DMC4, RE5 and ME2 uses different settings. Not sure about Splinter Cell Conviction since I haven't played it.

Also why are you talking about the 6600gt? When the 360 came out the 7800 series was already out for many months.

And if I lowered the settings as much as the consoles do I could push a 7800gt just as well.

Here is GeoW on medium settings on the PC which still looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

04dcarraher

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

It is not able to have better detail because higher details were not put in the pc versions of any game I just mentioned :| I just proved that with about 3 links earlier in the thread. So at max details wich is the default console settings as proven in my LINKS. The 6600 will not get a framerate anwhere close to 60fps at 720p it will get troucned thus that proves my point.

I brought up DX10 as those games support those features with extra performance boost not higher quality assets.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

argetlam00

LOL. You have a strange definition of "mid level PC"

Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 15 GB
Video Card (graphics): 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU Multiplayer Functions
Sound Card:
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c

Those are the recommended requirements for NTW.

CPU: 360/PS3 are both fine.

The systems don't need that much RAM because of lower overhead. So the combined RAM and VRAM are fine.

GPU on both are above requirements.

They would both run it with no problem.

Oh, I forgot those games only run if at max settings, although it runs fine on medium settings on my $700 laptop.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

You still didn't tell me, what setting and what PC they were using... and BTW, a 300$ has higher resolution then HDTV.

Hakkai007

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

The L227WTG monitor has awesome colors and contrast with a nice bright glossy screen.

10,000 is extremly low im starting to know why you think all console games look like crap.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

They use the exact same quality assets though your claims are based off image quality settings wich is the only diffrence and it is hardly a pixilated miss you must play all your games on a 300 dollar monitor.

TheSterls

You still didn't tell me, what setting and what PC they were using... and BTW, a 300$ has higher resolution then HDTV.

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

So your comparing a 300$ peice of hardware VS a 2000$... Compare you HDTV to a profesionnal monitor and then we'll talk.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

WhenCicadasCry

My PC is considered a low entry by todays standards, and it ****s upon the consoles. I just can't see a console being able to handle Total Wars huge battles. It's like porting Dead Rising to the Wii.

That is not the same at all. Both the 360 and PS3 meet the requirements of any game you can name. How can you seriously deny that they can run any game, when they will be running crysis 2? Games don't have to run at high settings to be playable.

For screenshots of PC games, look no further:

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=383744

Also has an epic Resident Evil 5 screenshot with a mod (a free mod).

argetlam00

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

tempest91

LOL. You have a strange definition of "mid level PC"

Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 15 GB
Video Card (graphics): 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU Multiplayer Functions
Sound Card:
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c

Those are the recommended requirements for NTW.

CPU: 360/PS3 are both fine.

The systems don't need that much RAM because of lower overhead. So the combined RAM and VRAM are fine.

GPU on both are above requirements.

They would both run it with no problem.

Oh, I forgot those games only run if at max settings, although it runs fine on medium settings on my $700 laptop.

Core and speed are not the only important things you need to know there is much more to it. Also a 700USD laptop has around 4 gigs of ram.

NTW could run on consoles but it would look bad and they would have to significantly lower certain settings which use up a lot of ram, vram and processing power.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

Because he said the 6600gt could make the games look better then either console I was stating hes false.

No that does not look better then the 360 version those textures look horrible and RE5 nor DMC4 feature higher settings. There DX10features only help performance wich the 7800 will not be able to take advantage of.

It is not able to have better detail because higher details were not put in the pc versions of any game I just mentioned :| I just proved that with about 3 links earlier in the thread. So at max details wich is the default consoel settings as proven in my LINKS. The 6600 will not get a framerate anwhere close to 60fps at 720p it will get troucned thus that proves my point.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

The L227WTG monitor has awesome colors and contrast with a nice bright glossy screen.

10,000 is extremly low im starting to know why you think all consoel games look like crap.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

All of those games can run on mid level PC's which is what consoles are. When the games are optimized for static hardware, they run even better on said platform. Although the graphics may be tweaked, it can be done.

tempest91

My PC is considered a low entry by todays standards, and it ****s upon the consoles. I just can't see a console being able to handle Total Wars huge battles. It's like porting Dead Rising to the Wii.

That is not the same at all. Both the 360 and PS3 meet the requirements of any game you can name. How can you seriously deny that they can run any game, when they will be running crysis 2? Games don't have to run at high settings to be playable.

What about Arma 2... it could probably run on console equivalent to PC low settings?

For screenshots of PC games, look no further:

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=383744

Also has an epic Resident Evil 5 screenshot with a mod (a free mod).

argetlam00

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

LOL. You have a strange definition of "mid level PC"

Hakkai007

Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 15 GB
Video Card (graphics): 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU Multiplayer Functions
Sound Card:
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c

Those are the recommended requirements for NTW.

CPU: 360/PS3 are both fine.

The systems don't need that much RAM because of lower overhead. So the combined RAM and VRAM are fine.

GPU on both are above requirements.

They would both run it with no problem.

Oh, I forgot those games only run if at max settings, although it runs fine on medium settings on my $700 laptop.

Core and speed are not the only important things you need to know there is much more to it. Also a 700USD laptop has around 4 gigs of ram.

NTW could run on consoles but it would look bad and they would have to significantly lower certain settings which use up a lot of ram, vram and processing power.

Not to mention play like ****

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

LOL. You have a strange definition of "mid level PC"

Hakkai007

Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 15 GB
Video Card (graphics): 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU Multiplayer Functions
Sound Card:
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c

Those are the recommended requirements for NTW.

CPU: 360/PS3 are both fine.

The systems don't need that much RAM because of lower overhead. So the combined RAM and VRAM are fine.

GPU on both are above requirements.

They would both run it with no problem.

Oh, I forgot those games only run if at max settings, although it runs fine on medium settings on my $700 laptop.

Core and speed are not the only important things you need to know there is much more to it. Also a 700USD laptop has around 4 gigs of ram.

NTW could run on consoles but it would look bad and they would have to significantly lower certain settings which use up a lot of ram, vram and processing power.

"Looking bad" is subjective. Most people play these games on medium settings anyway (not talking PC enthusiasts, but casual gamers), so it would be not much different. There are games on consoles with hundreds of units already and RTS's that run fine.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

You still didn't tell me, what setting and what PC they were using... and BTW, a 300$ has higher resolution then HDTV.

Bebi_vegeta

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

So your comparing a 300$ peice of hardware VS a 2000$... Compare you HDTV to a profesionnal monitor and then we'll talk.

Thats not the point, Most of these pc gamers that do direct comparisons play there consoles on crappy monitors . Thats not the way its meant to be played and it makes the games look signifcantly worse then a good HDTV.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

The L227WTG monitor has awesome colors and contrast with a nice bright glossy screen.

NVIDIATI

10,000 is extremly low im starting to know why you think all consoel games look like crap.

The games I mentioned do and thats a fact.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 15 GB
Video Card (graphics): 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU Multiplayer Functions
Sound Card:
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c

Those are the recommended requirements for NTW.

CPU: 360/PS3 are both fine.

The systems don't need that much RAM because of lower overhead. So the combined RAM and VRAM are fine.

GPU on both are above requirements.

They would both run it with no problem.

Oh, I forgot those games only run if at max settings, although it runs fine on medium settings on my $700 laptop.

tempest91

Core and speed are not the only important things you need to know there is much more to it. Also a 700USD laptop has around 4 gigs of ram.

NTW could run on consoles but it would look bad and they would have to significantly lower certain settings which use up a lot of ram, vram and processing power.

"Looking bad" is subjective. Most people play these games on medium settings anyway (not talking PC enthusiasts, but casual gamers), so it would be not much different. There are games on consoles with hundreds of units already and RTS's that run fine.

RTS games with hundreds of units on consoles. Go.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

My PC is considered a low entry by todays standards, and it ****s upon the consoles. I just can't see a console being able to handle Total Wars huge battles. It's like porting Dead Rising to the Wii.

Bebi_vegeta

That is not the same at all. Both the 360 and PS3 meet the requirements of any game you can name. How can you seriously deny that they can run any game, when they will be running crysis 2? Games don't have to run at high settings to be playable.

What about Arma 2... it could probably run on console equivalent to PC low settings?

If a game can be run on a medium level PC, it can be played on a console, and I don't know a game out there that really can't be played on a system with 2 GB of RAM, a dual-core, and a meh video card, (on XP that is, more RAM for newer OS's). I'm not sure why people think that games can only run at max settings.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

They may but alot of them look like crap.Other things matter like Contrast raito and black settings. My friend games on a 300 dollar monitor although its a year old so im sure 300 gets you more today. But I have my pc hooked up to a HDTV that cost me $2000 2 years ago and his jaw droped on how crisp everything looked.

TheSterls

So your comparing a 300$ peice of hardware VS a 2000$... Compare you HDTV to a profesionnal monitor and then we'll talk.

Thats not the point, Most of these pc gamers that do direct comparisons play there consoles on crappy monitors . Thats not the way its meant to be played and it makes the games look signifcantly worse then a good HDTV.

I'm sure there's plenty of people still playing console on SDTV or low end HDTV.

Anyway, a monitor usualy has way more details,sharpness... and "crips" you were refering.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

10,000 is extremly low im starting to know why you think all consoel games look like crap.

The games I mentioned do and thats a fact.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] .... 6600 with 512mb of video memory is able to have better detail and resolutions..... Also why do you bring up direct x 10 when none of the consoles hardware supports. and is the same era of hardware as the 7800..... 04dcarraher

It is not able to have better detail because higher details were not put in the pc versions of any game I just mentioned :| I just proved that with about 3 links earlier in the thread. So at max details wich is the default consoel settings as proven in my LINKS. The 6600 will not get a framerate anwhere close to 60fps at 720p it will get troucned thus that proves my point.

Read the link I posted, those games are playing max texture settings at 720p res you have have been proven wrong unless you can prove the 6600 and 7800 can do better .

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Core and speed are not the only important things you need to know there is much more to it. Also a 700USD laptop has around 4 gigs of ram.

NTW could run on consoles but it would look bad and they would have to significantly lower certain settings which use up a lot of ram, vram and processing power.

argetlam00

"Looking bad" is subjective. Most people play these games on medium settings anyway (not talking PC enthusiasts, but casual gamers), so it would be not much different. There are games on consoles with hundreds of units already and RTS's that run fine.

RTS games with hundreds of units on consoles. Go.

Thanks, but I said games with hundreds of units and RTS's. Reasons why you think an opinion different from yours is so terrible. Go.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP/Vista/Windows 7
Processor: 2.6 GHz Dual Core CPU
Memory: 2 GB RAM (XP), 4 GB RAM (Vista/Windows 7)
Hard Drive: 15 GB
Video Card (graphics): 256 MB DirectX 9.0c shader model 3 compatible GPU Multiplayer Functions
Sound Card:
DirectX: DirectX 9.0c

Those are the recommended requirements for NTW.

CPU: 360/PS3 are both fine.

The systems don't need that much RAM because of lower overhead. So the combined RAM and VRAM are fine.

GPU on both are above requirements.

They would both run it with no problem.

Oh, I forgot those games only run if at max settings, although it runs fine on medium settings on my $700 laptop.

tempest91

Core and speed are not the only important things you need to know there is much more to it. Also a 700USD laptop has around 4 gigs of ram.

NTW could run on consoles but it would look bad and they would have to significantly lower certain settings which use up a lot of ram, vram and processing power.

"Looking bad" is subjective. Most people play these games on medium settings anyway (not talking PC enthusiasts, but casual gamers), so it would be not much different. There are games on consoles with hundreds of units already and RTS's that run fine.

I am a casual gamer and I play on high to max on just about every one of my games.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

That is not the same at all. Both the 360 and PS3 meet the requirements of any game you can name. How can you seriously deny that they can run any game, when they will be running crysis 2? Games don't have to run at high settings to be playable.

tempest91

What about Arma 2... it could probably run on console equivalent to PC low settings?

If a game can be run on a medium level PC, it can be played on a console, and I don't know a game out there that really can't be played on a system with 2 GB of RAM, a dual-core, and a meh video card, (on XP that is, more RAM for newer OS's). I'm not sure why people think that games can only run at max settings.

I think you've never played Arma... The game is just so massive.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] I play my console games on a Pioneer Elite Kuro (Model PRO111FD) and they don't look even close to PC. Which I also play on that same screen.NVIDIATI

The games I mentioned do and thats a fact.

ME2, DMC4,RE5 and Splinter Cell: Conviction those games all use the exact same quality assets at max settings and I posted links earlier in the thread to verify this . The visual diffrence comes to strictly image quality settings.

He is claiming the 7800 and 6600 gtx pushes these games at higher settings beyond the consoles.

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

:shock:

This Resident Evil 5 screenshot looks a lot better than the ones used in your comparison....

Not mine but I will post my own soon once my game installs.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The games I mentioned do and thats a fact.

TheSterls

ME2, DMC4,RE5 and Splinter Cell: Conviction those games all use the exact same quality assets at max settings and I posted links earlier in the thread to verify this . The visual diffrence comes to strictly image quality settings.

What? ME2 and RE5 looks significantly better on max settings on PC :| Thats a fact, I've experienced it myself. If you want the Resident Evil 5 pic, here (nvm, its been posted above):

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=383744

I'm sure you can find a ME2 one in there as well. Compare all you like.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"] Which games did you mention?argetlam00

ME2, DMC4,RE5 and Splinter Cell: Conviction those games all use the exact same quality assets at max settings and I posted links earlier in the thread to verify this . The visual diffrence comes to strictly image quality settings.

What? ME2 and RE5 looks significantly better on max settings on PC :| Thats a fact, I've experienced it myself. If you want the Resident Evil 5 pic, here (nvm, its been posted above):

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=383744

I'm sure you can find a ME2 one in there as well. Compare all you like.

You can look the digital foundry comparison link I just posted they verified that it is default max settings minus RES and AA same with ME2. Sorry but you are wrong and that picture just proves that. The textures look identical its just a crisper image due to IMAGE QUALITY SETTINGS. Hermits do not seem to grasp the concept between better image quality and higher quality base assets.

[QUOTE="NVIDIATI"][QUOTE="TheSterls"]

The games I mentioned do and thats a fact.

TheSterls

ME2, DMC4,RE5 and Splinter Cell: Conviction those games all use the exact same quality assets at max settings and I posted links earlier in the thread to verify this . The visual diffrence comes to strictly image quality settings.

What game is that WhenCicadasCry?Ravensmash

Its a mod for Crysis (pretty sure). Pretty sure she got that from my NeoGAF thread.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

What about Arma 2... it could probably run on console equivalent to PC low settings?

Bebi_vegeta

If a game can be run on a medium level PC, it can be played on a console, and I don't know a game out there that really can't be played on a system with 2 GB of RAM, a dual-core, and a meh video card, (on XP that is, more RAM for newer OS's). I'm not sure why people think that games can only run at max settings.

I think you've never played Arma...

Minimal system requirements:
Windows XP or Windows Vista
Dual Core CPU
nVidia Geforce 7800 / ATI Radeon 1800
10 GB free HDD space

Right from the official site. None of those rule out the 360 or PS3. I swear, people think that these games don't run on medium level systems, like every person out there runs every game maxed out. I've played most of these PC games on Max settings before selling my rig. Graphics aren't everything.

What game is that WhenCicadasCry?Ravensmash

Judging by the suits, Crysis.