Epic Games - Consoles have left PC games behind

[shio]

Garcian Smith said:

shio said:

Garcian Smith said:

MattAAron said:
Money was never the issue for me... and I don't think its an issue for PC Gamers. When you go into PC Gaming, you know your going to have to spend money to stay there...Just like buying a high-end sports car, you know you'll have to spend thousands and thousands just to keep that car

Most console gamers probably spend $400 every 4-6 years... (Yes I know some of you have 2 or 3 consoles, I'm just talking majority)

Compared to most PC Gamers who spend $300-$1000+ every year upgrading their PC's to play current games...Which I don't think any of them really complain about it, I think its more of a hobby for most gamers in a way... Like buildling a car, always want something better, faster, etc

I don't think money is the real issue why PC Gaming has died... I think Consoles are getting so much better with features/specs to the point where they can just about compete with PC Gaming finally... PC Gaming you will always have to upgrade your PC, this is how its always has been, and always will be...something that PC Gamers know and accept... and they are fine with it...

This is pretty much my take on it. Consoles have always received PC ports, but they've very seldom been powerful enough to run them well; while PCs received Half-Life in 1998, for example, and could play it in 768p, it took three years for console gamers to get it, and then they had to play it in 480i with horrible jaggies on the PS2. Nowadays, the PS3 and 360 can achieve HD resolutions that are pretty much indistinguishable from those that a top-of-the-line gaming PC can muster, and PC/PS3/360 cross-platform titles look pretty much the same across the board.

And with most major big-budget games nowadays going the PS360PC route, it makes more sense foreveryone but "power users" (the type who would have a gaming PC in the first place) to pay $350 for a 360 or $400 for a PS3 that will last 5 years, rather than $600+ for a gaming PC that will have obsolete parts a year from its purchase. (Or they could just get a $250 Wii, but we won't discuss that here. =P )

You are wrong, consoles were always ahead of PC in terms of graphics at the beginning of each generation, and it always took a couple of years for the PC to surpass consoles. The reason Half-Life couldn't be released in 1998 on consoles was because the current console generation (PS1/SS/N64) was nearing it's end, with PC having already surpassed on graphics. Valve could only wait for the next gen to kick in.

But the console gen we are now is different. This is the first time the consoles didn't surpass the PC at the beginning, and in just a year the PC has already reached limits that the Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 will never reach..... Crysis and Settlers 6.

 

 

No, I think you're the one who has it backwards. Half Life came out around November(?) of 1998, which was around the midpoint of the generation. At the time, it blew away anything on the N64, not to mention the PS1, both of which displayed in 320x240. (Whose idea was it to jump right to 3D when console hardware couldn't even display in 480i yet, anyway?) On top of that, the PS1 and N64 were both about equal to what a top-of-the-line gaming PC could produce when they came out - albeit in the aforementioned shitty resolution.

And don't tell me that the X360 was surpassed by gaming PCs in 2005, or the PS3 surpassed by them in 2006. The games themselves may not have shown the system's true power back then, but even now in 2008, both are running PS360PC titles with about the same level of graphical detail as the PC is. (And just look at the system requirements for some of those games; like, say, Assassin's Creed. It's really impressive what the 360 and PS3 can do with their hardware specs, in comparison to PCs.)

PCs can still run things in higher resolution, but really, who's going to notice the difference between 1080p via HDMI and 1200p via DVI? That difference is a long ways away from the difference between the 240i via composite and 768p via VGA divide of yesteryear.

And don't even get me started on Crysis. When top-of-the-line, just-built gaming PCs can only barely run a game, then it's obvious that two-year-old console hardware can't.

PS1 and Sega Saturn launched 1994/95, over 3 years before Half-Life. And even though N64 was released "just" 2 years before Half-Life, Nintendo's console was at the time not as technologically solid compared to the PC's as Saturn was in 1994/95, which is why N64 was priced at a lower launch price than Saturn's and even PS1's.
It was bound for N64 to get outdated faster than PS1 or SS, in terms of technology.

In 2005 there was F.E.A.R on PC. No other console game have better graphics.
In 2006 there was Oblivion on PC. No other console game had better graphics.
In 2007 PC actually surpassed the limit of Xbox 360 and PS3. And there was Crysis, Settlers 6, etc...
This gen, no console will ever reach Crysis' amazing visuals. It would be luck if it even went near high settings at the same scope.

Assassin's Creed is not a well optimized game, it has worse requirements than Crysis.

And how many games will actually scale 1080p? The more complex visuals they have this gen, the worse resolution they will have in average. Hell, alot of games are already coming out at lower res: Halo 3 and COD4 only have around 600p (which is the current lowest resolution for PC games).

Dude, a 2/3 years old PC can run Crysis at a playable framerate. Hell, even my over 5 and half years old PC can run Crysis, albeit at lowest settings. You don't need a top-end PC to play Crysis, and a 700$ PC or 350$ Upgrade or <200$ GPU can still give you an experience that consoles can't match, at High Settings.