| deadhorse said: I highly doubt it will last 10 years. The reason? Because PC games are going to have way better graphics than the PS3/360 in the years to come. [...] Doom 3 was released on 08/03/04. The Xbox was able to run it. Reviewers said it was pretty close to the PC version. Now, I'm not exactly sure how a standard definition TV compares to a monitor in terms of resolution, but apparently it's 480 scanlines. I'm guessing it requires the same amount of power to display a game on a standard definition TV as it does to display it on a monitor at 640x480 resolution. Doom 3 can be run on ridiculously slow PCs at that resolution, but it looks horribly pixelated. However, people said that Doom 3 looked almost as good as the PC version. Why? Because you don't see the pixels on an SDTV. [...] However, HDTVs do not have scanlines. You can't use scanlines to create the illusion that the game looks as good as the PC version despite running on a very low resolution. In other words, a game on the 360/PS3 needs to be running at the same settings as the PC version to look just as good. [...] In short, it would be cheaper to upgrade your PC to get good graphics than it would be to buy a PS3. The Creators of Crysis, which is being released on the PC pretty soon, said the PS3 and 360 would be unable to handle it. Crysis pretty much puts Gears of War to shame. So basically the PC is capable of running graphics better than a $600 system almost immediately, which is completely different from last generation where a $200 system had better graphics than an extremely expensive PC. At the moment, it would cost more to upgrade your PC to Crysis level than buying a PS3 but that's going to change a year after Crysis is released. But 3 years from now? Come on, by then an upgrade to a PC that can run Crysis on max settings will be nothing and by then there will be PC games that blow away even Crysis. As for 10 years from now, it's unthinkable as to what a PC will be able to do. The majority of gamers are too clueless to know that they can open up their PC and put in a new video card, but they're still they're going to be looking at PC games and wondering why their system can't do that. |
Let's see! First, console games are not defined by PC games. Perhaps that will be true when everybody (meaning 80+% people) has HDTV, but until then, they're not alike at all. Consoles aren't even used like PC anyway.
The XBox was unable to run Doom 3 correctly, meaning without huge drops of dramerate. I'm always amazed at what supposedly high end players on any XBox console, are ready to "forget" to make it look better. I mean things like drop of framerate, load times, reliability, ...
And no, running a game at NTSC or even PAL resolutions internally doesn't require as much power as running a game at 480p. You're right that SDTV, and even EDTV have no pixel though. They display video, which is why there are all kind of problems displaying them on a monitor, which is more accurate than a SDTV.
PC games will always be better, that doesn't prevent the PS2 to sell like mad.
Again, PC are too complicated and are a big no-no for most people to play games more complicated than solitaire or mines. Crysis is irrelevant in this regard, as depressing as it can be for a hardcore gamer.
I'll never understand why graphics whores want to force their view on console gamers. Graphics just don't sell a console or a game. People would flock to PC if that were true. this has already been debunked countless times. Graphics is just a "plus", not a core need of any game.
That's why handhelds still sell.
Adding power to a console is not a breakthrough at all, so there won't be any breakthrough before long, unless someone comes up with another genius idea.
As for the PS3, let me tell you graphics are not what will make it last 10 years or not, graphics are irrelevant in this regard. There are still more PS2 sold than any next gen consoles these last 6 months, so please, give this "graphics graphics" nonsense a rest!
