Oh, I don't blame anyone.  I just wanted to let DavyGee (and others not so "well-versed in the PC gaming realm") understand how the PC side of things work. You never need a top-shelf rig if you want to play games. Even Oblivion scales nicely with some "antiquated" hardware if you can live with lower settings.

The only gripe I have with PC gaming (apart from installs and the ridiculous copy-protection - still can't install my legit version of Chaos Theory! Might as well d'l the torrent - it's illegal, but I have purchased it legitimately and still can't play it so I have good reason to download the pirated version that simply works!) is that in order to play the game at 100% settings, you either have to have the best of breed machine, or wait a year until hardware catched up with your wallet.

Oh, the law of diminishing returns is so apparent in the PC gaming world... 

Refresh me on how that's pertinent to what you've quoted?

Yes you can play Crysis on a low resolution with crappy textures on a PC that cost $1500 2 years ago.....but, is this version of Crysis much better than what you can get on the 360 and PS3.

I'm not comparing PC's to Consoles...someone else did this...I'm just picking up on the fact, that you need a beast of a machine to play games that look better than 360 and PS3 games.

You cannot pick up a $600 PC than can produce the visuals of the PS3 at the moment...can you? 

Who ever said anything about crappy textures and low resolution?

You are again comparing apples and oranges. They are different machines, and as a matter of fact, you can't play Crysis on any PC right now, seeing as it hasn't been released yet!

And also, there are numerous ways to optimize the game to suit your computer. You can shoot for higher resolution/lower detail, vice-versa, or any combination. If you want to get really fancy, you can go straight into the system or config ini file to tweak the game to your liking.

You want 2xFSAA? 6xFSAA? Punch in the numbers.

You want HDR? Go for it. Otherwise, leave it off.

And so on, and so forth.

But again, you are comparing a general-purpose machine to a highly-specialized machine. It's like comparing an SUV with a Formula 1 racer. The F1 racer will handily outperform the SUV in speed, but in everything else it simply can't compete.

But OK, I'm game: Frankly, for being a general-purpose machine, the PC is great at what it does. PCs aren't sold at a deficit, and they aren't subsidized by the parent company. PCs are not designed for games, and the fact that currently they can, as a whole, go toe-to-toe with console games speaks volumes about a PC as a general computer that in fact can play games. This gap, if not apparent today, will be eventually, and will simply increase in the future.

And again, you do not need a beast of a machine!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/08/system_builder_marathon/

Do read through it, DavyGee, and enlighten yourself (I mean this in a good way, not to attack you). By the way, be sure to check out the price of that rig, which is indeed cheaper than a subsidized PS3.

Some of the benchmarks include running Doom3 at a "low resolution" of 2560x1600 (I'd like to see the PS3 or any console try that on "inferior-resolution" 720p/1080i/1080p!) with "crappy" High Detail settings - at 33.3FPS!

Of course, that was without antialiasing - let's see what an "el-cheapo" PC gaming rig can accomplish with 4xFSAA@1600x1200: 38.1FPS!

So, in conclusion, yes, you can pick up a sub-$600 PC that can produce great visuals. PS3 levels? I dunno - this is a bit subjective, but can you play games on it, and without crappy textures and low res? You can bet your life on it.

Edit: Regardless of which one is more powerful (and I tend to agree that consoles get the upper hand initially but fall behind as time goes on - but honestly, I just want to have fun with my games!) do keep in mind that within two years' time, a $600 PC will blow any of today's consoles out of the water. History has a terrible habit of repeating itself, and it will this time as well.

when it comes down to it...its all about games....ps3 will have their franchises out the ps3 will increase in hardware and everyone will be even...i dont think ps3 will be the top dog this generation...what drove the ps2 with success was mainly the games and the dvd player install in the system...blu-ray right now isnt that popular to the consumers....so consumers are not gonna get a ps3 just because of games...THERE ISNT ANY GAMES OUT FOR IT RIGHT NOW!!!....publishers need to know that consumers will purchase a system once they see that games are avaliable!!!! Konami-MGS4, SquareEnix-FF13, come on send these games out!!!!!!

Tetsuya - they can't send games out that don't work because they're not finished :-p

yeah i understand that "mrstickball" but if they dont send these games out quickly consumers are gonna turn there back on sony with a snap of ur fingers....cause there isnt any FREAKIN GAMES out right now!!! come on i just looked at the this months GameInformer....its a magazine published by Gamestop and EBGames....and their wasnt a single review of a PS3 game....if they keep up with no games for the PS3 then....bye-bye sony...

Caricature translation :

Title : Loosers season for home consoles. Roll on the start of the new school year and christmas!

Wii : Too much shame the dust!

360 : Yeah but you, people keep trying to buy you!

PS3 : 10 years, I won't stay on the shelf 10 years me!!

My english is far from perfect but in French that's very funny.