TheRealMafoo said: Bodhesatva said: The correct answer is Crysis. You fail, "PC doesn't count" whiners.  The correct answer is the Air Force's F16 Flight Simulator. You fail, "30 million dollars simulator doesn't count" whiners.

Good answer! That's probably the better one. I just hate how people draw the line where it suits them.

The Wii is less powerful, less customizable, and less feature rich than the PS3 and 360. The PS3 and 360 are less powerful, less customizable, and less feature rich than the PC.

It's a very clear, distinct price vs. tech curve. The Wii is about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a PS3. If you're willing to spend more to get more graphics/tech, have fun. The PS3 is about  1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a PC. If you're willing to spend more to get more graphics/tech, have fun.

Just stop cutting the curve off when it suits you. Include the whole curve, or none of it.

oh come on you can take a comparison too far. Detailed as it may have been.

The only hardware part you can really upgrade in 360 and PS3 is the hard-disc. Everything that is relevant for games is the same for every PS3 in existance. Yes you can put a bigger hard-disc into it but thats it. Its bigger. If the game only needs 5 Gig the game won't see a difference.
So a PS3 is not more like a PC for gaming. It is far more like a PC when it comes to media playback. You can watch most movie formats, you can add external USB devices etc. pp. But for gaming its a stable platform.

Yes PC games on a high-end machine will look better. I think its more pathetic that the advantage of PCs is not even bigger now. There is only ONE FREAKING GAME that is pulled through all PC vs. console graphic threads. And that is Crysis. Its not even an outstanding game (good but not outstanding).

This is one reason I switched to console gaming. At the moment the graphical advantage of the PC just isn't there to compensate for its disadvantages. This will change: Crysis shows the potential. But at the moment potential is 99% of the graphical advantage of PCs. Crysis and some higher resolutions, better textures for some PC ports like CoD4 or Gears.
This will change once the AVERAGE gaming PC has left the HD consoles behind. But not yet.

Bodhesatva said: Good answer! That's probably the better one. I just hate how people draw the line where it suits them. The Wii is less powerful, less customizable, and less feature rich than the PS3 and 360. The PS3 and 360 are less powerful, less customizable, and less feature rich than the PC. It's a very clear, distinct price vs. tech curve. The Wii is about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a PS3. If you're willing to spend more to get more graphics/tech, have fun. The PS3 is about  1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a PC. If you're willing to spend more to get more graphics/tech, have fun. Just stop cutting the curve off when it suits you. Include the whole curve, or none of it.

Actually, I think it's a good reason to draw the line. What if he said "what's the best graphics on the PS3"?

If that was his question, it would be because he has one, and wants to know (good reason to draw a line). he might only have enough money for a console, and thus wants to know within his price range.

if a high end PC cost the same, then it's a silly place to cut it off.

Also, if he has added PC, it would have been a boring question, because Crysis is then the only answer.  :)

Ironically you can get a 360 with just as good graphics as a PS3 for less money than a Wii (in Europe). So You can get better graphics with less money

Bodhesatva said: *bleu-ocelot* said: What game has the best graphics out of all the current generation games,across the three platform? PC not included for obvious reasons. alkndgvlkjnqwpoujrdl;a,jcplacaksjf

 Why include PC, unless you find a thread of 'Crysis' posts interesting.

everything's gonna change after 12th June!!

Uncharted has the best graphics, i love it

Zucas said: Imperial said:    Not going to include GT5P because I think that took no effort whatsoever.

Chrizum said: rocketpig said: Chrizum said: rocketpig said: Chrizum said: Imperial said: Chrizum said: BioShock, Super Mario Galaxy, Assassin's Creed, Lost Winds Graphics , not art direction , Wii games shoudln't even be mentioned on this thread.(IMO) GT5 and Uncharted are amongst the best i've seen. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Uh, that's not really opinion. SMG may look great but when compared graphically to Assassin's Creed, it fails on every level. I was hoping I'd not have to start this discussion here, but if you're asking: Art direction is an integral part of graphics. You cannot say "well, these graphics are absolutey stunning, but the art direction is terrible". This works in both ways, as technically atrocious games can't possibly have a good art direction. Those two are intertwined, and just cannot be separated. You can of course say Game X is technically more advanced than Game Y, or that game Y has an art direction you prefer more, but the best looking games are both technically proficient and have a good art direction. Therefore, I'd say Super Mario Galaxy looks WAY better than Iron Man on the PS3, even though Iron Man is technically more advanced. So yes, Super Mario Galaxy is one of the best looking games this generation, even if the game appeared on the Xbox 360. I was speaking on prurely tecnicial levels. Wii games looks vastly inferior to the best PC and 360/PS3 games. Art style has nothing to do with it. Well, then we have to agree to disagree here. Art direction is just as important as technical aspects, which should be clear by now. There are only a handful of games that look better than Super Mario Galaxy (and Assassin's Creed, and BioShock, etc.) in my opinion.

I don't disagree with you, I only said that I was judging the games on purely technical aspects. SMG looked very good but when someone says "best graphics", it can't compete with the technical marvel that is Assassin's Creed. 

Bodhesatva said: TheRealMafoo said: Bodhesatva said: The correct answer is Crysis. You fail, "PC doesn't count" whiners.  The correct answer is the Air Force's F16 Flight Simulator. You fail, "30 million dollars simulator doesn't count" whiners. Good answer! That's probably the better one. I just hate how people draw the line where it suits them. The Wii is less powerful, less customizable, and less feature rich than the PS3 and 360. The PS3 and 360 are less powerful, less customizable, and less feature rich than the PC. It's a very clear, distinct price vs. tech curve. The Wii is about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a PS3. If you're willing to spend more to get more graphics/tech, have fun. The PS3 is about  1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a PC. If you're willing to spend more to get more graphics/tech, have fun. Just stop cutting the curve off when it suits you. Include the whole curve, or none of it.

I don't mind him cutting off the PC because without that distinction, this thread would become a "post your favorite Crysis screenshot" festival.

Anyone with a brain knows that the PC is technologically superior to the most powerful console, even at console launch. From there it only goes downhill as the PC keeps gaining power.