By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - 5 Reasons PC Gaming Is Better Than Consoles

Player2 on 27 November 2012
fordy said:
Player2 said:
fordy said:
pezus said:

Emulation in some (most) cases is better than the game on the system it was produced for. There are problems here and there with some games but as the emulator is developed, more and more games work perfectly.


The aim of emulators is to achieve the exact same outcome as the actual product. I don't see how you can have an emulator that works "better" than a system, as a "perfect" emulator would produce the same results. Additions that seek to improve on an already existing system is not classed as "emulation".

Read my above post. I have already provided points why emulators cannot be considered "perfect". Run an emulated game side by side with it's console counterpart and you'll notice an eventual skew in timing. 

Framerate. For example Shadow of the Colossus runs badly on the PS2, hitting 16fps or lower sometimes. Emulated on a PC it can run at 30fps without drops, as it should have been.

Careful. Once again, EMULATION works to perfectly mirror the product. An improvement of framerate may be nicer, but it's deviating from what is known as true emulation.

Tell that to Sony and its PS3 HD collections xD



Around the Network
DigitalDevilSummoner on 27 November 2012
CGI-Quality said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:

The great logical fallacy of the PC vs console argument:

 Whereas the console is a set configuration of hardware, like the Playstation 3 for example with its Cell processor and XDR ram, when it comes to the PC we actually talk about the hypothetical ideal PC, the the best possible set up of hardware technology at any given time.

You don't really have to have a high end PC to have an "ideal" set up (depending on who you talk to). Most gaming PCs today, even low-mid, have little trouble outperforming current consoles. The whole idea of what's "better" for each is merely subjective, however.

When you compare a mid range PC's graphics to a console's crème de la crème like Killzone and Gears, the PC's edge on graphics is gone so the argument that the PC in general has better graphics is grossly missleading.



fordy on 27 November 2012
Player2 said:
fordy said:
Player2 said:
fordy said:
pezus said:

Emulation in some (most) cases is better than the game on the system it was produced for. There are problems here and there with some games but as the emulator is developed, more and more games work perfectly.


The aim of emulators is to achieve the exact same outcome as the actual product. I don't see how you can have an emulator that works "better" than a system, as a "perfect" emulator would produce the same results. Additions that seek to improve on an already existing system is not classed as "emulation".

Read my above post. I have already provided points why emulators cannot be considered "perfect". Run an emulated game side by side with it's console counterpart and you'll notice an eventual skew in timing. 

Framerate. For example Shadow of the Colossus runs badly on the PS2, hitting 16fps or lower sometimes. Emulated on a PC it can run at 30fps without drops, as it should have been.

Careful. Once again, EMULATION works to perfectly mirror the product. An improvement of framerate may be nicer, but it's deviating from what is known as true emulation.

Tell that to Sony and its PS3 HD collections xD

I looked those up. Those are remasters, not emulation. 



DigitalDevilSummoner on 27 November 2012
CGI-Quality said:

What's a mid-ranged PC? List some specs. If the graphics card, only this, is at least a GTX 480 (or AMD equivalent), I guarantee it will run games that easily look better than the best from either of the HD consoles.

PC, in general, yes, can produce better graphics (technically speaking) than any console. If you have a weak PC, that doesn't invalidate what the most capable machines can do. A PC is a PC.

 I disagree, technically speaking a PC can give a higher res but that alone doesn't qualify as better graphics.

Mind you, we are close to the end of this gen with 6 year old consoles. At the first 3 years the PC was getting its ass kicked and yeah I also am a PC gamer.



DigitalDevilSummoner on 27 November 2012
CGI-Quality said:

After the first 3 years? The 360 launched in 2005, the original Crysis in 2007. Not to mention, if you were able to run F.E.A.R. at max in 2005, nothing on consoles topped it (I'm sure there's more, but that one sticks out).

And PC games generally have more advantages over consonle titles (exclusive or not) than just a higher res (which can actually make a fairly big difference). What about PoM, FoV, tessellation, AoM? And that doesn't even list all of the advantages. I agree that consoles have their fair share of pluses over PC, but graphics are not one of them.

Exactly what I am saying. FEAR at max and especially Crysis were NOT for mid range machines by ANY means.



Around the Network
DigitalDevilSummoner on 27 November 2012
CGI-Quality said:

Which didn't mean that consoles were suddenly more capable machines than the PC as a platform. The subject matter is about PC in general, not any specific set-up.


and we have come full circle:

DigitalDevilSummoner said:

The great logical fallacy of the PC vs console argument:

 Whereas the console is a set configuration of hardware, like the Playstation 3 for example with its Cell processor and XDR ram, when it comes to the PC we actually talk about the hypothetical ideal PC, the the best possible set up of hardware technology at any given time.

 



r3tr0gam3r1337 on 27 November 2012

my pc spec.

INTEL 3570K @ 4.4GHZ

SAPPHIRE 7870 GHZ EDITION 2GB GDDR5

8GB CL9 G.SKILL RIPJAWX 1600MHZ

OCZ VERTEX 3 120GB SSD

SEAGATE MOMENTUS XT 750GB HYBRID SSD

ASUS MAXIMUS V GENE Z77

OCZ ZS 750WATT PSU

my pc can run crysis and fear no problem and emulation is not a problem either, this spec is mid to high end.



Current PC build:

Asus Z97I-Plus, i5 4790K @ 4.6ghz, EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 1377/1853/124%, Corsair Vengence Pro 2400mhz 2x 8192mb, Corsair RM850, Corsair H80i, 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD, 750GB Seagate Momentus XT SSHD, 320GB Weston Digital HDD, Corsair 230T, Corsair K50 Raptor, HP XQ500AA mouse, Windows 10 Pro 64bit. iiyama Pro Lite G2773HS 120Hz 1Ms G2G gaming monitor.

fordy on 27 November 2012
pezus said:
fordy said:
pezus said:

Emulation in some (most) cases is better than the game on the system it was produced for. There are problems here and there with some games but as the emulator is developed, more and more games work perfectly.


The aim of emulators is to achieve the exact same outcome as the actual product. I don't see how you can have an emulator that works "better" than a system, as a "perfect" emulator would produce the same results. Additions that seek to improve on an already existing system is not classed as "emulation".

Read my above post. I have already provided points why emulators cannot be considered "perfect". Run an emulated game side by side with it's console counterpart and you'll notice an eventual skew in timing. 

It's better because of the potential for a better performance+better graphics. Why does that not count?


As I mentioned before, better graphics than the original does not make for better emulation because it deviates from the intended task of an emulator, which is to mirror the workings of the original. What you describe opens the path to potential "false positives", because "improvements" involve making a lot of assumptions, for instance, when moving to a higher resolution.



zuvuyeay on 27 November 2012

all i know is i bought a low end PC now for about £400 last year but it lets me play older games and some newer at the lower settings which is fine but next year i will be moving up to the £1000 so mid range i guess by the looks of things,i look forward to getting what i can get,i know it will be more than enough for my needs for a few years

i'd always have a console and PC though i think



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Normando on 27 November 2012
r3tr0gam3r1337 said:
Normando said:
My #1 reason for switching to console gaming, PC gaming is lonely. Even if you're talking to people, you're still sitting alone on your computer with a headset on hunched over in front of your screen. Gaming is always better with friends.

I'd rather bust out the N64 and spend all night playing Mario Party 2, Pokemon Stadium, and Super Smash Bros with my friends than spend all night playing Crysis on max all alone.

My #2 reason is that for me, games being extra pretty isn't worth the cost. Especially since you're probably going to need a console aswell anyways.

#1 that is more about your own personal opinion than fact, the same can be said about both 360 and ps3 gamers so its not just pc gamers who some times play games online alone but 'hunched up' what a steriotypical comment.

#2 games not being extra pretty, are you for real or what, one of the biggest reason's for PC gaming is the fact PC's can be upgraded and this does effect performance, better graphics with a powerful graphics card will not only give the games a better look but also enable better performance overall, you dont need a console its more of an accessory than a necessity.

take note of the thread title, 

5 Reasons PC Gaming Is Better Than Consoles there is a thread titled 5 Reasons Why The PC Is The Worst Platform To Game On which is where i think your comments would be better suited.