CentricStorm's forum posts

Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts

[QUOTE="CentricStorm"]To resurrect PC gaming you would first have to kill it, seeing as it is currently in a far more successful position than all of the current generation consoles.anolecrabcf

Wow 805 hours playing Crysis. You must really hate Koreans

Multiplayer.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
To resurrect PC gaming you would first have to kill it, seeing as it is currently in a far more successful position than all of the current generation consoles.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
But MGS4 beat Crysis Warhead.;)mitu123
This is a joke right?
Welcome to system wars.Human-after-all
There's nothing wrong with the console graphics king threads, but the comparisons to Crysis need to stop. Crysis won the title of graphics king years ago, and it will never be beaten, because it is photorealistic. It can only be equalled, and even this will only happen at the earliest in the next generation of consoles.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
PC gaming is far cheaper than both the Xbox 360 and PS3. Console gamers pay a premium to have an easier experience that 'just works' and caters to their general lack of technical inexperience.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
Any answer other than Rage is WRONG! :[ Does the engine not have bump-mapping?killab2oo5
Rage may win artistic style, which is of course a subjective matter, but no way can it win photorealism. It looks partially like a cartoon. Crysis is photorealistic. There is no way to get better graphics than that. They won't even be equalled until the next generation of consoles release. The graphics in Crysis can be tweaked to far higher levels than the maximum ingame settings allow, but of course the console fanboys won't post these screenshots, instead posting the worst Crysis screenshots and comparing them to supersampled console game bullshots, sticking to small size pictures to remove the extreme PC resolution advantage.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
[QUOTE="CentricStorm"][QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="CentricStorm"]You know how your ancient PS3 or Xbox 360 graphics card still runs games? Rendering at low resolution, upscaling to HD.lowe0
Do you have any proof that a majority of games on the PS3 or 360 are upscaled? Plenty of console games (Bad Company 2, Borderlands, Blur, MAG, God of War III, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift, Rock Band, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Burnout Paradise... the list goes on) render at 720p natively instead of upscaling.

Apologies, I will rephrase: You know how your ancient PS3 or Xbox 360 graphics card still runs games? By either rendering at low resolution (720p), or rendering at an insanely low resolution (600p) and upscaling to a low resolution (720p), with some games being upscaled to a high resolution (1080p). That same $600 2007 computer could still run Crysis at maximum settings at 720p. Expensive graphics cards are only necessary to run games rendered at superior PC-level resolutions, for which the performance drain is significantly higher.

Can't say that I see any problem with 720p; if it did bother me, wouldn't I just be gaming on my PC instead?

So you're trying to turn this in to an argument for no reason? I didn't say 720p was bad for gaming, just that it is a low resolution. The point of both of my posts was to prove that PC gaming is far cheaper than people make it out to be. Some people didn't believe that a $600 2007 computer could run Crysis at maximum settings - of course it can, just at lower resolutions (such as 720p, same as the consoles) and with optional GPU scaling applied for upscaling to higher resolutions. The fact that you explicitly say that 720p is perfect for gaming only proves my argument that PC hardware is cheap, so thank-you for that.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
[QUOTE="CentricStorm"]You know how your ancient PS3 or Xbox 360 graphics card still runs games? Rendering at low resolution, upscaling to HD.lowe0
Do you have any proof that a majority of games on the PS3 or 360 are upscaled? Plenty of console games (Bad Company 2, Borderlands, Blur, MAG, God of War III, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift, Rock Band, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Burnout Paradise... the list goes on) render at 720p natively instead of upscaling.

Apologies, I will rephrase: You know how your ancient PS3 or Xbox 360 graphics card still runs games? By either rendering at low resolution (720p), or rendering at an insanely low resolution (600p) and upscaling to a low resolution (720p), with some games being upscaled to a high resolution (1080p). That same $600 2007 computer could still run Crysis at maximum settings at 720p. Expensive graphics cards are only necessary to run games rendered at superior PC-level resolutions, for which the performance drain is significantly higher.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
The console fanboys who think PC hardware is expensive are laughable. You know how your ancient PS3 or Xbox 360 graphics card still runs games? Rendering at low resolution, upscaling to HD. The same render-low, upscale-high method can be applied on any graphics card. Render games at 600p with 2xAA and upscale to whatever resolution is needed, just like the Xbox 360 and PS3 do (except of course the PS3 is so pathetic it cannot manage 1440x900 or 1680x1050). Whoever said that their $600 2007 computer can run Crysis at maximum settings is correct.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
The graphics are way above the average game...I'm not sure why you aren't impressed at the technical achievement they've made with Killzone 3. Just because it is vastly inferior to Crysis' level of visual photorealism doesn't mean that Killzone 3 isn't impressive - especially considering the ancient PS3 hardware it is running on.
Avatar image for CentricStorm
CentricStorm

337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 CentricStorm
Member since 2010 • 337 Posts
Crysis wins even with the high level of fanboy bias present in the original post. Poor quality screenshots from Crysis being compared to supersampled bullshots from four console games? Crysis is photorealistic and will never be beaten graphically. Just get over it.