Why would anyone not own a gaming PC?

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]What game is that WhenCicadasCry?argetlam00

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

Yeah..and I'm a boy. :evil: :P

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="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.

TheSterls

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.

I'm not going to look back at your proof either. Infact, the proof that the PC version of Resident Evil 5 is superior has just been proven above.

[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.

Hakkai007

"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.

That's awesome, but you are aware that games run on medium settings and that people do play them still?

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

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.

tempest91

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.

You just listed the minimal requierements... this is not medium level here... recommended is medium level.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]What game is that WhenCicadasCry?WhenCicadasCry

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

Yeah..and I'm a boy. :evil: :P

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

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

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.

Please read the context of the argument to realize what hes arguing. He is saying the only reaosn the console versions of these games are able to keep up is because they use some low settings and that both the 6600 and 7800 were capable of making the games look better then there console counterparts. Im claming thats not true as they were able to run the games at playable framerates wich were the default settings on a console .

GTA IV also looks alot better.

There are big enough difference in resolutions ,detail and filtering. With the help of more memory on the gpu.

PS3

Pc

PS3

Pc

Even with this small picture you can see what was tone down on the 360 version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk- Pc vs 360 vs PS3 multiplats (memory does play a role)

And heres another example of memory differences can do

360

Mid ranged Pc from 2006 with a Geforce 6

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

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

NVIDIATI

Yeah..and I'm a boy. :evil: :P

Yup, I've seen em. Haven't seen that one before though. :)

[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 .

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

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.

argetlam00

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.

I'm not going to look back at your proof either. Infact, the proof that the PC version of Resident Evil 5 is superior has just been proven above.

As proven above you are simply wrong.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

I think you've never played Arma...

Bebi_vegeta

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.

You just listed the minimal requierements... this is not medium level here... recommended is medium level.

Recommended just changes to a 3/4 core processor and faster GPU. Still not a problem for either. My point still stands, it can be done. People act like the system would blow up trying to run it, which is false.

Some people are lazy to get off their butt and build a PC themselves or something.

However I agree, PC gaming is the best compared to any consoles. Steam just obliterates anything available on the consoles from day one.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

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.

TheSterls

I'm not going to look back at your proof either. Infact, the proof that the PC version of Resident Evil 5 is superior has just been proven above.

As proven above you are simply wrong.

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that comparison, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

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.

tempest91

You just listed the minimal requierements... this is not medium level here... recommended is medium level.

Recommended just changes to a 3/4 core processor and faster GPU. Still not a problem for either. My point still stands, it can be done. People act like the system would blow up trying to run it, which is false.

Forgot to add the memory requirements 1gb for the game itself , unless the games is altered to stream sections on the map and cut alot of objects from the level the consoles wouldnt run it.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

I'm not going to look back at your proof either. Infact, the proof that the PC version of Resident Evil 5 is superior has just been proven above.

argetlam00

As proven above you are simply wrong.

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that thread, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only do to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

You just listed the minimal requierements... this is not medium level here... recommended is medium level.

04dcarraher

Recommended just changes to a 3/4 core processor and faster GPU. Still not a problem for either. My point still stands, it can be done. People act like the system would blow up trying to run it, which is false.

Forgot to add the memory requirements 1gb for the game itself , unless the games is altered to stream sections on the map and cut alot of objects from the level the consoles wouldnt run it.

Right, you would put the disc in the console would blow up. I get it now. The minimum requirements say otherwise and the recommended indicate that after optimizations and with a decent development team, it would run it just fine.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

You just listed the minimal requierements... this is not medium level here... recommended is medium level.

04dcarraher

Recommended just changes to a 3/4 core processor and faster GPU. Still not a problem for either. My point still stands, it can be done. People act like the system would blow up trying to run it, which is false.

Forgot to add the memory requirements 1gb for the game itself , unless the games is altered to stream sections on the map and cut alot of objects from the level the consoles wouldnt run it.

the memory requirements for any current console game that is also on the pc is at least 1. 1.5 gigs and thats to get the game to run on the very lowest settings.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="SilverIce7"] I'm sorry to say but I think you are lying through your teeth, seeing as how many professional reviewers out there mentioned the trouble they had running those games maxed out on even their higher-end PCs.coolkid93

Nope.

Crysis 720p 4xAA. I can turn off AA and run it at 1080p 30fps. Notice my GPU model? 2008.

Here's during a heavy combat scene with over 10+ AI. Remember, Crysis at 20fps with motionblur is suprisingly smooth.

Here's Mass Effect 2, a title released this year, maxed at 1080p 60fps. Check top right of image for FPS.

PC games are not just graphics. That's like saying Uncharted 2 gameplay sucks because the graphics are great.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

As proven above you are simply wrong.

TheSterls

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that thread, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only doe to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

And mods, you can't forget mods. There are graphics mods you know. And why are you discounting resolution and AA?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that thread, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

argetlam00

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only doe to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

And mods, you can't forget mods. There are graphics mods you know.

WIch are not benchmarked , wich further proves my point. He was arguing that the pc version was running higher quality assets and its not. That was the whole reason to the original argument. And his claim was that the 7800 and even 6600 series could make RE5 on pc look better then consoles when in fact it could barely run it.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that thread, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

argetlam00

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only doe to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

And mods, you can't forget mods. There are graphics mods you know. And why are you discounting resolution and AA?

You should also note that there are mods available to enhance the gameplay. :P

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

Recommended just changes to a 3/4 core processor and faster GPU. Still not a problem for either. My point still stands, it can be done. People act like the system would blow up trying to run it, which is false.

Forgot to add the memory requirements 1gb for the game itself , unless the games is altered to stream sections on the map and cut alot of objects from the level the consoles wouldnt run it.

the memory requirements for any current console game that is also on the pc is at least 1. 1.5 gigs and thats to get the game to run on the very lowest settings.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

As proven above you are simply wrong.

TheSterls

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that thread, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only do to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

O really?

360

Mid ranged Pc from 2006 with a Geforce 6

There are big enough difference in resolutions ,detail and filtering. With the help of more memory on the gpu.

PS3

Pc

PS3

Pc

Even with this small picture you can see what was tone down on the 360 version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk- Pc vs 360 vs PS3 multiplats (memory does play a role)

Well I'm going to bed. I've been stalking this thread for almost 6 hours, and increased my post count by 300. :lol:

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

Yet, guess what not only does the PC version look better in that thread, the image from NeoGAF on Resident Evil 5 shows that it now looks even better than before. The pic is legit, btw, if your doubting since if it wasn't NeoGAF would have banned the member and removed the image.

04dcarraher

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only do to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

O really?

360

Mid ranged Pc from 2006 with a Geforce 6

There are big enough difference in resolutions ,detail and filtering. With the help of more memory on the gpu.

PS3

Pc

PS3

Pc

Even with this small picture you can see what was tone down on the 360 version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk- Pc vs 360 vs PS3 multiplats (memory does play a role)

I did not mention any of those games so now your just trying to dodge. And dead space cant reach ps3 quality setttings on a 7800gtx and keep even a reasonable framerate.

The whole basis to your argument is PREY wich is a first gen xbox 360 port whic used one processing core and is one of the worst looking games on the 360 to this day.

Also whats the point of that video thats using a 8800 not a 6600.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

You really need to read the other post before you jump into the argument because now you are just rambling. Im not arguing that RE5 doesnt look better on pc. It does but only do to the fact it has superior resolution and AA . It is not pushing higher quality assets then the 360 version. Which further proves my point a 6600gt or 7800gtx could not make the game look better then its 360 counterpart.

O really?

360

Mid ranged Pc from 2006 with a Geforce 6

There are big enough difference in resolutions ,detail and filtering. With the help of more memory on the gpu.

PS3

Pc

PS3

Pc

Even with this small picture you can see what was tone down on the 360 version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk- Pc vs 360 vs PS3 multiplats (memory does play a role)

I did not mention any of those games so now your just trying to dodge. And dead space cant reach ps3 quality setttings on a 7800gtx and keep even a reasonable framerate.

The whole basis to your argument is PREY wich is a first gen xbox 360 port whic used one processing core and is one of the worst looking games on the 360 to this day.

Also whats the point of that video thats using a 8800 not a 6600.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

O really?

360

Mid ranged Pc from 2006 with a Geforce 6

There are big enough difference in resolutions ,detail and filtering. With the help of more memory on the gpu.

PS3

Pc

PS3

Pc

Even with this small picture you can see what was tone down on the 360 version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk- Pc vs 360 vs PS3 multiplats (memory does play a role)

04dcarraher

I did not mention any of those games so now your just trying to dodge. And dead space cant reach ps3 quality setttings on a 7800gtx and keep even a reasonable framerate.

The whole basis to your argument is PREY wich is a first gen xbox 360 port whic used one processing core and is one of the worst looking games on the 360 to this day.

Also whats the point of that video thats using a 8800 not a 6600.

It doesnt matter the only diffrence is IMAGE quality settings. A 6600 cant run GTA4 at settings higher then the ps3 at even 5fps. The only game you have listed that the a 6600 and 7800 are going to make look better then the360 at even a playable framerate is PREY and thats only because it was a god awful port.

cause I can't find uncharted 2,halo reach, demons souls, gears of war 3,killzone 3, FFvsXIII,vanquish,socom 4 on the pc perhaps?

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

I did not mention any of those games so now your just trying to dodge. And dead space cant reach ps3 quality setttings on a 7800gtx and keep even a reasonable framerate.

The whole basis to your argument is PREY wich is a first gen xbox 360 port whic used one processing core and is one of the worst looking games on the 360 to this day.

Also whats the point of that video thats using a 8800 not a 6600.

TheSterls

It doesnt matter the only diffrence is IMAGE quality settings. A 6600 cant run GTA4 at settings higher then the ps3 at even 5fps. The only game you have listed that the a 6600 and 7800 are going to make look better then the360 at even a playable framerate is PREY and thats only because it was a god awful port.

cause I can't find uncharted 2,halo reach, demons souls, gears of war 3,killzone 3, FFvsXIII,vanquish,socom 4 on the pc perhaps?

TheShadowLord07

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Wait what? What type of work? If I am using a PC as a work tool it is usually while I am at work and I am not allowed to play games on it lol

This PS3 thing Sony made has some crappy video editor and USB ports for keyboards and printers and stuff and a web browser. Really these consoles can do most of what a PC does. I expect the next gen to improve on this. I look for the PS4 to have an ad campaign that says "It only does everything". Except this time it won't be a lie and it really will do everything :)

Bebi_vegeta

What do you mean what work? You just proved... your using your PC to work, not a console. Why do you think that is?

Try to find me a console that can do some photoshop, music editing... you know, work related stuff.

Sounds like work at home? Which most of the world doesn't partake in but if you find me an office job that will pay me to play Mass Effct all day on their PC then consider me sold. Otherwise i'll be playing Splinter Celll on my 360 and writing silly posts in SW on my computer :lol:

[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.

TheSterls

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="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] See, this what I mean, you are not understanding all those multiplatform games I posted dont use direct x 10 or 11 and only use direct 9. the gpu only processes the information not how good it looks. Thats all ablout the memory , have more memory can make a huge difference.04dcarraher

It doesnt matter the only diffrence is IMAGE quality settings. A 6600 cant run GTA4 at settings higher then the ps3 at even 5fps. The only game you have listed that the a 6600 and 7800 are going to make look better then the360 at even a playable framerate is PREY and thats only because it was a god awful port.

The 7800 could not run GTA4 at the console settings at even a reasonable framerate. Its minimum require ments are a 7900 an the console version looks better then minimum settings. http://www.vistax64.com/gaming/192970-gta-4-minimum-requirements.html. GTA4 is horribly optmizsed by my oringal point stands not ALL GAMES on consoles use mininum or low settings like ones i mention earlier .

How was prey a horrible port? I dont know why does RAGE look far superior in every way and run at 60fps and is about 50x larger? Prey was designed to run on systems with one core so the multicore arhitecture in the 360 was a complete pain in the ass at the time. They ahd to gimp the visuals for the processor to allow it ro run at even a reasonable framerate.As they got a hold of it that was no longer an issue as seen by the fact PREY looks awful by todays standards.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

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 .

ronvalencia

Those are IMAGE quality settings the 7800 cant do any of those effects . And it cant run that game at even a playable framerate.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

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.

tempest91

You just listed the minimal requierements... this is not medium level here... recommended is medium level.

Recommended just changes to a 3/4 core processor and faster GPU. Still not a problem for either. My point still stands, it can be done. People act like the system would blow up trying to run it, which is false.

Nobody said it with blow up... just not playable... they we need to make a whole new game, which will be different... hence Crysis 2.

Starcraft 2 completely maxed out everything on ultra at 1080p. Cutscene is in real time, and ingame pic is from possibly the most insane level in SC2.WhenCicadasCry

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Starcraft 2 completely maxed out everything on ultra at 1080p. Cutscene is in real time, and ingame pic is from possibly the most insane level in SC2.VladJasonDrac

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

Since games seem to be usually developed on consoles then ported on PC. PC gamers don't want to be a dump for console ports. Despite ports looking better they arent using the full potential of the PC.

How would you like it if every 360 and PS3 game was a wii port, just without waggle? Thats kinda how we feel.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

Wait what? What type of work? If I am using a PC as a work tool it is usually while I am at work and I am not allowed to play games on it lol

This PS3 thing Sony made has some crappy video editor and USB ports for keyboards and printers and stuff and a web browser. Really these consoles can do most of what a PC does. I expect the next gen to improve on this. I look for the PS4 to have an ad campaign that says "It only does everything". Except this time it won't be a lie and it really will do everything :)

VladJasonDrac

What do you mean what work? You just proved... your using your PC to work, not a console. Why do you think that is?

Try to find me a console that can do some photoshop, music editing... you know, work related stuff.

Sounds like work at home? Which most of the world doesn't partake in but if you find me an office job that will pay me to play Mass Effct all day on their PC then consider me sold. Otherwise i'll be playing Splinter Celll on my 360 and writing silly posts in SW on my computer :lol:

So you just agreed that console can't do everything PC can?

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Starcraft 2 completely maxed out everything on ultra at 1080p. Cutscene is in real time, and ingame pic is from possibly the most insane level in SC2.VladJasonDrac

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

cause I can't find uncharted 2,halo reach, demons souls, gears of war 3,killzone 3, FFvsXIII,vanquish,socom 4 on the pc perhaps?

argetlam00

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

Yes you can run GTA 4 on a 7800, people have done it and it looks just as good as the console versions. Having prey running on one cpu instead of all three has nothing to with texture detail thats the gpu's job not the cpu Next, Rage is going to be hurt in overall image quality because of them targetting 60fps and the consoles limited memory. 04dcarraher

Yes it does have to do with the processing function its the reason why Prey benchmarked better on rigs that had single core cpu's . If it didtnt matter then why isnt Prey among the best looking games to this day and why does RAGE look far superior in every way? Its being done in 720p and pushing 2MSAA wich was at least equal to what Prey was doing.

[QUOTE="VladJasonDrac"]

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

Starcraft 2 completely maxed out everything on ultra at 1080p. Cutscene is in real time, and ingame pic is from possibly the most insane level in SC2.TheSterls

Thanks for the screenshots of different games. I know you weren't responding to me but I asked earlier for anyone to show me the godliness that is PC > the PS3s claim to graphics fame that is Uncharted 2 and you can clearly see that UC2 can't really hold a PCs jock.

Which birngs me to the point of if the PC games look that good then why are people crying about consoles holding them back when from the screenies I have seen that isn't the case at all?

OH please I own SC 2 , Its cutscenes look about as good as UC2 when you actually play it. Its a great looking game but come on its nothign special the best console has to offer hold up quite well with pc games. And thats usually due to the fact console games have a much larger budget.

Starcraft 2 has a 100 million dollar budget...And console budgets mean little. What does Crysis have, a 20 million dollar budget (not completely sure) and Killzone 2 has a far bigger one. Yet Crysis looks WAY better.

[QUOTE="argetlam00"]

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

cause I can't find uncharted 2,halo reach, demons souls, gears of war 3,killzone 3, FFvsXIII,vanquish,socom 4 on the pc perhaps?

TheShadowLord07

PS3 exclusives (which are of genres that can be found on PC and some of those genres, like shooters, are superior on PC) are a reason you own a PS3. Its not a reason not to own a PC.

I was going by what you said in page one actually about zero reasons to own a console. Can I find those games I listed on the pc? I like consoles because it has games you can't find on the pc. and I like the pc because I can't those games on the consoles.

I never said there is no reason not to own a console. There is just ONE, exclusives. THats it. What I said is there is no reason not to own a PC. People seem to be gaming purely on consoles and ignoring the PC when a PC has FAR more advantages than any console.