please don't get an Alienware or a mac pro..... you can build a PC for the same price with better hardware. If you don't know how to build a PC, ask around. Lot's of people do...
@Azkotek I'll just have to take your word for it that I don't notice a difference between two games on two systems. I mean, I'm me, you're you. You must know best what I perceive with my own vision. Let's look at this a different way. A gamer who owns a good PC, an Xbox 360, and a PS3 comes here. He doesn't have ANY of these games. He looks at these games. Let's say he sees Call of Duty on all 3 systems. He thinks it looks better on PS3. This comparison has helped him decide which system to buy it on. He thinks Fallout 3 looks better on PC. He buys it on PC. Again, it has helped the gamer decide. That's the purpose of this graphics comparison. You know the magazine Consumer Reports? They compare products to help people decide. Lets say they're comparing dish washing machines. Mr. X buys a washing machine without ever reading Consumer reports, and to him, it's great. Maybe he notices some leftover food on his dishes now and again. No big deal. Then he reads consumer reports and realizes his dish washer is near the bottom of the list and another does a MUCH better job. He might not be too happy that he was sold a poor dishwasher, being that there are better ones out there, even though they may be slightly more expensive. He may have wanted to spend the extra money for it to get the better quality had he known. Now obviously that's not the same thing as these consoles, but the comparison is for how well dish washers wash dishes. This is a comparison of how well a platform displays graphics, and people reading it should realize that before posting stupid remarks. If you're here disputing the fairness of the comparison because one costs more than another, it doesn't matter. It's not a price comparison. It's not a comparison of which is more portable, or comfortable to use. If you're going to make a remark about graphics looking better on one system than another, try to know why it looks better. But alas, in all fairness, you're right. Not everyone knows about lighting methods, shaders etc. I can at least state the reasons why I think something looks better on one system than another. PS3 version of Fallout 3 for instance. Jagged edges. Poor FSAA. I know for a fact that a smooth edge in reality is not going to have jagged edges like that, and thus, the more smoothed edges on 360 and PC make it graphically better. I also know that the trees in the distance on the PS3 version look horrible. This is obvious stuff. You don't need knowledge of FSAA and shaders to know that something looks bad. But, if someone thinks those trees and jagged edges looks normal, after comparing it to 360 and PC, then fine. Play what you think looks best, by all means. I condone it.
As to the rest of my thoughts on this topic, I'm primarily a PC gamer. I've been building gaming PC's for years. I've played every one of these games on PC and 360. I have a 360 and do not have a PS3. My thoughts on the differences in graphics quality are unbiased. So if I say I dislike how a PS3 game looks, it's not because i'm a PC/360 fanboy, it's because I know what to look for and I know what good quality looks like. Brightness settings aside, most of the PS3 games look good, but there are more flaws than those shown on 360 versions. I even think some of the 360 games have pretty glaring flaws. If you want to question the validity of this comparison, don't. This is a perfectly valid comparison, as a PC is a gaming platform, among other things, just like the 360 and PS3 are gaming platforms. It deserves to be compared. And before you want to throw out a "360 is better than PS3" or "PS3 is better than PC" remark, please try to learn about antialiasing, anisotropic filtering and different lighting methods first. This is a graphics comparison for a reason. Details are what put one platform ahead of another. Don't just blindly say one platform is better just because you paid more money for it. This is a graphics comparison, ladies and gentlemen, and it doesn't matter if you think it's more fun on a PC, or you're more comfortable playing it on a console, or you can't see the minute details because it's always moving. It's a graphics comparison. Simple as that. Not a fun comparison, not a "am I comfortable while playing" comparison, not a price comparison. A GRAPHICS comparison. If the graphics look better when the game is paused than another game, it's GOING to look better when you are in the thick of the game, moving around and whatnot. You may not notice the difference every single moment you are playing, but there will be times when you will. If a game has poor, or no antialiasing, I notice it when I am playing. If the lighting is bad, I notice it. If the textures look bad, I notice it. I still have plenty of fun playing it, but the bottom line is it may look better on another platform, regardless of the amount of fun i'm having.
Look at the last picture of Fallout 3. Please do not tell me you think PS3 version looks better than 360 version. Lets take a look. The trees in the background on 360. Not great, but not bad. On PS3. Big, solid, horrible looking, solid colored blotches. Totally unrealistic. Let's look at the edges of things on the 360 and PS3, again, on the last picture. 360, nice, clean, non-jagged edges. PS3 edges are jagged and horrible looking. Where's the antialiasing, Sony? I don't see it. Let's move on to Dead Space. Xbox 360.. the one thing that bothers me is the face of the man to the left of main character. Horrible looking. It's the same on PS3. BUT....on PS3.. what is this HORRIBLE lighting effect on the main char? Hideous. Lets move on to World at War. Xbox 360.. not bad. PS3, again with the epic fail on antialiasing. Good job. GTA4... it's about the same on both systems. Good job to both.
TimmyDigital's comments