Pemalite said:
captain carot said:
Pemalite said:
The PC was always ahead of consoles, I was part of the "3D revolution".
The PC was ahead starting in the mid 90's, especially with games that utilised the GLIDE API.
|
Now what? Always or since the 90's?
I've played on PC since the early 90's. Even older games.
PC benefited from 'cheap' storage to some degree, as did home computers back then. But 2D capabilities where well behind consoles for a long time.
3D wise, PC's could count on strong CPU's if those had an FPU back then. Until consoles like 3DO, Jaguar and Playstation released with 3D capabilities on par or better than PC's back then for a way lower price.
That changed to some degree when 3DFX released Voodoo cards and Glide and even more so with DirectX 6 and cards like the first TNT. Still, consoles like Dreamcast where cheap but strong while a decent gaming PC was expensive and lasted for two to three years.
All that has changed.
About those 1080p monitors, i remember CRT's like an incredibly expensive CAD monitor. At the same time 2D PC games usually had 640x480 - 800x600 and even with a fast rig you could be happy to get decent framerates with 1025x768 in 3D games.
Nope, PC didn't always have the cutting edge. As a gaming platform it was pretty shitty for almost a decade, with VGA and Soundblaster being the first game changers, one soundcard alone almost as expensive as a console though.
|
Disagree. The *proof* I posted says otherwise. (Minus cost. PC was stupidly expensive back then. Stupidly. I think I spent almost $1,500 on a pair of Voodoo 2's back then.)
Pretty much every Multi-platform through gaming history, even back in the MS DOS days... PC had better image quality.
Another example is Wolfenstein. Released in 1992, the SNES didn't get anything like that untill a few years later... And then when it was ported It's Object/Wall resolution was half that of the PC anyway.
The PC also had the likes of Dune 2, WarCraft, Wing Commander, X-Com, Scorched Earth, Civilization. etc' in the early days.
The NES could do 48 colors and 6 grays. @ 256x240 resolution.
A PC at the time... Could be equipped with a 256 color SVGA card and do full Audio and was technically capable of 800 x 600.
Here is Kinds Quest 5 released in 1990:
NES:
PC:
PC has always had the edge, I have provided the proof. You have not. So please do so. ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Entertainment_System#Hardware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_video_graphics_array
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Wonder_series#VGA_Cards
http://www.techradar.com/au/news/gaming/the-evolution-of-pc-graphics-will-blow-your-mind-1289593
|
So you are comparing inferior versions intentionally?
The NES was totally outdated when Kings Quest 5 came out. But feel free to compare some mid to late 80's PC-games with 2D graphics.
Same for Wolfenstein. SNES was basically 100% 2D by design. It was weak with raycaster engines and even weaker with polygons. But it could do 2D stuff that was hard to handle for PC's until years later.
About Descent, Doom etc., i played on a 486DX50 back then. Not what you'd call slow 93/94. Doom and Doom 2 already had some framerate issues sometimes and Descent ran like shit on high details when there was more than one enemy at a time, even with 8MB of RAM.
That was when the Playstation came out in Japan and had great looking games that ran perfectly fluid (for that time) like Ridge Racer, Tohshinden and so on.
PC pros were storage (floppy, hdd) especially for stuff like adventures and RAM for textured 3D titles as well as some 2D games.
On the other hand PC's for a very long time had weak spots.
Most of that disappeared over time.
