There are a lot of threads where spectacular screenshots showing PC games in extreme detail and very high resolution are pasted. However, the question that I'd like to ask is how many people actually have the PCs to run the games on such settings?
Looking at various hardware sites, one can see a pretty different picture. For example a game like Metro 2033 requires a extreme end card like the GeForce GTX 480 to run playlable (about 30 frames per second) in best settings in high res. And that's only the graphics card, but already costs more than the most expensive console.
So when you paste all those spectacular screenshots, you're actually showing what most PC gamers can't really play playlably on their rigs.
This also opens the question why should PC games be developed for such high-end rigs if they can have a lot broader audience with lower graphics (StarCraft 2 is a perfect example).
Note that this isn't a PC vs consoles graphics comparison so try to stick to the thread.
nameless12345
My computer isn't even close to cutting edge, but its still far more powerful than the consoles. There's no need to have games on max settings at release. By the time I end up playing more games, they're a few years old and the video card necessary to max them out is quite affordable. 
Log in to comment