Yeah. I love having a console as well. Some games I prefer to play on the console simply because it's easier with a controller and sometimes I feel like lounging on my couch. If it's also available on PC, it will look better on my PC and run better, no doubt about it. But, since it's a graphics comparison, and not a comparison of whether or not I find it easier to play on console or PC, I must say the PC graphics will be better and I will easily notice it. I'm trying to make people understand that. It's the principle of the thing. It's a graphics comparison. Not a "which platform it's more comfortable to play on" comparison, or a "which costs less" comparison. It's a graphics comparison and any comments regarding the comparison should not bring other factors into the mix, which it seems 95% of the posters are doing. But yes, thank you for proving to all the console fanboys that PC's are not as expensive as they make them out to be. It's the stupidest arguement they can use. Maybe now we can see some more on topic arguements.
PC's arent the only platforms suffering from piracy. The firmware on Xbox 360 drives can be easily overwritten with modded firmware, allowing free Xbox 360 games. MS has banned -MANY, MANY- people from XBL due to this, costing them monthly XBL payments from many many thousands of people, and not to mention all those people are spending 0 bucks a game, every game, costing the console gaming industry hard earned money as well.... /look of innocence
@Beaker_1 "games are meant for controllers not keyboards. give us all a break" I wish there was a way to challenge you to any game that is on PC and whatever console you have in multiplayer... Sigh.... A keyboard is a form of controller, you dingleberry.
I agree with AnnoyedDragon. Every post he has made. The only leg you console fanboys have to stand on is: (1) PC's are better, but because you have to spend a lot of money on them. (which also includes the "You have to upgrade them every 6 months" arguement) Well, you're right. PC's are better. I said it. And you're all right, to a point, about PC's costing more. If you are a person who DOES NOT have a PC in any way, shape or form, it most likely will be more expensive to put one together that can run all these games at the highest settings. In the long run, it's money much more well spent than on a console. If you are already a person who has an existing 2 or 3 year old machine, it won't cost too much to make it a beast. And you DO NOT have to dump huge amounts of money into a PC every 6 months or every year to keep it able to continue playing new games. That is a wildly inaccurate statement. Yeah, you WOULD need to dump large amounts into it every 6 months ONLY if you wanted to keep it upgraded with the most cutting edge hardware on the market. The games that are coming out do not need the most cutting edge hardware on the market. The PC gamespot used to achieve their screenshots is FAR, FAR more than they needed. No offense to anyone making these crazy inaccurate statements. You're not very educated on PC prices and hardware, and that's ok, but don't pull this crap outta your butts just to try and take PC's down a level. Do your research. Understand that PC's aren't as expensive as you're all making them out to be before you try to sound like you know what you're talking about. And by all means, play what you think looks best, even if it's not what is technically the best.
@Tharaver, Harryema I'm with Harryema on this one. price cannot be used as a factor in this comparison, as it's not a price comparison. It's a graphics comparison. Take it for what it is. Don't try to justify WHY PC looks better by saying PC's cost more, etc. The PC Gamespot is running -DOES- cost a lot more than a console, but that's not the comparison. The comparison is solely focussed on the graphics. Also, you do not have to dump 500-600 dollars into a PC every 6 months. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard anyone say. I was playing all 4 of these games on a year and a half, almost 2 year old machine at max settings. I have upgraded since then to a far, far better machine. Basically, if you're going to comment, don't try to justify PC looking better with how much it costs. It's not a price comparison.
@TUnified Many PC gamers -DO-, in fact, build their systems JUST to game. It just so happens it can also do other things as a result. You're also forgetting the cost of a nice HDTV for your console. @kyleechols123 Developers DO know that PC's require upgrades, etc. If by your definition of an "average PC", you mean a 5 year old system, then no, it may not. I just upgraded my system after all 4 of these games came out, and my 1 and a half year old system could play all of them just fine on high settings. You're wrong about having to upgrade a PC as often as you say. Basically, quit complaining about the comparison. Your Xbox 360 and PS3's are still working just fine, even if it just so happens that something out there can do it better.
@rob-11 I won't question the brightness settings they used on the consoles, but this isn't biased. If they DIDN'T include PC it would be biased. The fact that they included it makes them unbiased to consoles. PC is a gaming platform, just like 360 and PS3, and deserves to be compared.
It should, Kashmiro. The player may not have been under any negative conditions at the time of the screenshots. It is wierd that ALL the PS3 screenshots lack it though.
TimmyDigital's comments