Jdevil3 said:
dahuman said:
Jdevil3 said:
mundus6 said:
Jdevil3 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Jdevil3 said:
Then != Than
I had to vote for 100% more powerful because that's the highes option in the poll. Had it been me who made this poll, 500% would be the lowest option considering that only means 5x. 1200% would be the highest.
My midrange PC is AT LEAST 5x more powerful than my PS3...
I've said this before and I'll say it again.
What did the PC versions of PS1 games look like 1 or 2 years before the PS2 was released? They were the same as the PS1 version but at a higher resolution, better textures, less aliasing, more effects, higher framerate, etc. Did PS2 games look like the PC version of PS1 games (higher res, etc?)? No, they went for a generational leap in graphics instead of just having the same graphics at a higher res, etc.
What did the PC versions of PS2 games look like 1 or 2 years before the Xbox 360 was released? Again, they were the same as the PS2 version but at a higher resolution, better textures, less aliasing, more effects, higher framerate, etc. Did Xbox 360 games look like the PC version of PS2 games? No, again, they went for a generational leap in graphics instead of having the same graphics at a higher res, etc... even the highest end PCs of 1 or 2 years before the Xbox 360 was released would never be able to run stuff like Gears of War 3.
What do the PC versions of PS3 games look like today? They are the same but at a higher resolution, better textures, less aliasing, more effects, 16xAF, sometimes tessellation, sometimes depth of field, higher framerate, etc. Now, if history repeats itself, instead of just just having the same graphics at a higher res (1080p), better textures, etc, they'll go for a generational leap in graphics once more and we'll have stuff like the Samaritan Tech Demo or better.
If they don't do that and they're just the same but with all those things mentioned (1080p, 60FPS, tessellation, dynamic lightning, etc) what will third parties do? They'll try to maximize their profits by releasing their games on current gen consoles with the graphics we know today (1280x720, 30FPS, etc) AND on PS4 and the next Xbox with better graphics(1080p, 60FPS, etc) just like what happens today with games on both PC and Xbox 360/PS3.
By doing that, gamers will just keep buying their games on current gen consoles, they'll see no need for a next gen console just as they don't see the need to get a PC when they see the difference... a difference few seem to notice. |
What PC games were you playing?
Quake III, Unreal Tournament, Theif, System Shock II, and Half-Life were released in 1998 and were fairly close to what was released for the Dreamcast in 1999 and most early PS2 games.
|
Like I said, the PC version of PS1 games... I played Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3: The adventures of Lara Croft, 3: The Lost Artifact, 4: The Last Revelation. I also played Megaman Legends 1 on PC and Metal Gear Solid 1. The PS2 had stuff like MGS3 which had way better graphics than MGS1 on PC... none of those PC games came close to stuff like God of War II, Silent Hill 3/4 and Final Fantasy XII on PS2.
|
... YEAH, lets compare PC games that are from <99 with PS2 games that are from >04. What about Half Life 2, Farcry or Doom 3? They still look better today on the highest settings, than most games today for consoles. You are delusional, PC has always been way ahead of consoles, always. However as Wii proved, raw power is far from everything and while PC is and probably always will be the "ultimate console". Its biggest flaw is that the gamers pirate the games. So you can never make more money from a PC game than a console game, unless you are a online game and those are pretty big now on consoles to, Cod anyone?
Also 500% more powerful = 6 times as powerful not 5 times. Thats why 100% more powerful is twice as powerful.
|
I was comparing what PCs were capable of in 1998/1999 to what the PS2, hardware from 2000, was capable of. If you play, let's say, Silent Hill 3 on a PS2 released in Y 2000, it will work... if you try to play that on a PC from 1998/1999, it most probably won't run... or if it does, it will run like crap. That's because consoles usually surpass the capabilities of the best PCs from 1 or 2 years before the console is released.
Try to compare what Half-Life 2 looked like in PCs from 2004 (the year it was released on PC) instead of using hardware from today to make the comparison. What was the best videocard in that year?, I think the 7800GT was released in 2005, that means the best GPU of that year (2004) was worse than that... and the Xbox 360 was released in 2005 with the Xenos GPU, which is as powerful as a 7800GT or GTX (I don't remember which one). Do you really think the PCs from 2004 would be able to run stuff like Gears of War 3?
If history repeats itself again, next gen consoles should have a video card as good or better than the top of the line cards of today (06/22/2011), surpassing what PCs of today can do and making another generational leap in graphics. Asuming consoles are released in 2013 (2 years gap), PCs of today will probably have problems running what the next gen consoles will be able to run. PCs of 2011 (with single Video Cards) probably won't be able to run games that consoles of 2013 will be running in 2017. But of course PCs of 2017 will run those games better, lol.
And why are you telling me that? 500% MORE powerful does mean 6x AS powerful... but I said my PC is 5x MORE powerful which means 500% MORE powerful. It would've been different if I said AS like you but I said MORE :P And I already know 100% more powerful is 2x as powerful... xD
|
unfortunately, that kind of comparison doesn't mean a thing because consoles weren't PC-like until Xbox came around, the PS2 doesn't even have a GPU type component in it lol, the hard part back in the days was changing the code to fit on another platform because they are very different, and while PS2 ran on mostly very low native res, PCs were already at HD res back then. Gears of War 3 would run on PCs from 2004 if they port the code properly and not be half assed about it, DX9 was already there, and the best PCs in 2004 can handle the game, the thing is, the 360 would still have came out cheaper at the same performance vs PC price if you count the dollar value, that's the actual difference.
|
Yeah, PCs were playing in "HD" even during the PS1 era, I played all Tomb Raider games and every other PC game I had at that time at 1024x768 :P... I know it's not 1280x720 so it's sub HD but there probably were monitors with higher res than mine back then... I just don't remember. I still have that monitor and it still works, it's over 10 years old already xD. Only my brothers use that one though, I use a Samsung P2370h on my PC.
Anyways, I really can't imagine PCs from 2004 running Gears of War 3, Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, etc with the same graphics as the console versions or better... but if you say they can I'll believe you :P.
|
