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

Forums - PC - PC Gaming will reclaim the throne during the last half of this Console Gen.

FKNetwork on 27 April 2009
vlad321 said:
Million said:
Big woot , i'll still most probably be playing on consoles regardless. Sitting @ PC playing games = meh IMO, playing on PSN or XBL with friends = FTW.

 

I'd rather get my ears clawed off by cats than to play on PSN or XBL and communicate to or be communicated by others. Not to mention you have ot PAY for XBL. That's absolute FAIL right there.

In your opinion,

I would MUCH rather pay for xbox live (£3 a week, wow, really costs a fortune lol) as it is MUCH more enjoyable than sitting on your pc alone in a dark room, consoles are far more social than pc's could EVER be (in terms of gaming), 

 

 

pc gaming = geeky that noone really cares about anymore,

console gaming = FTW that almost everyone gets involved in, families, friends, children, old people etc

 

 

Ask your average joe public what pc game they like and i bet they wouldn't have a clue what your going on about, then ask them what console games they enjoy, there is your answer lol

 



Around the Network
Deneidez on 27 April 2009
Reasonable said:
Slimebeast said:

Not a significant difference. Bump maps, HDR, textures, normal maps, parallax maps, shadows - everything is the same on PC and PS360, xcept for the little cut off in view distance on the PS360 version of Fallout 3. Generally the difference is only in a little AA/AF (and notice that these are hardware effects, not differences in the game versions ifself) and sometimes slightly compressed textures on PS360.

We must different eyes because when I play Fallout 3, or Oblivion or CoD4 on a PC vs 306/PS3 I see a pretty decent difference in overall image quality - doesn't affect gameplay of course, the good bits are still good and the bad bits are still bad.  But visuall there is a significant difference so far as I can see.  Checking out the site where I think you got the Fallout 3 images their analysis seems to point to a pretty big difference between the PC and console versions.

However, as per Squill's point (and I think you echoed the same sentiment) it doesn't seem quite as massive as you'd imagine, which I think is down to the developers rather than the PC platform - i.e. if you're making Fallout 3 or CoD4 would you really sink that much more into the title to make it shine vs PS3/360 or would you simply give it a graphics hike and call it a day?

While I see lots of 360 is holding the PS3 version back rubbish I am starting to feel the 360/PS3 versions are holding the PC versions back a tad.  For sure they're resulting in less well coded PC versions judging by the high level of bugs present in a lot of recent high profile PC versions of big titles.

.

Also Slimebeast should try to use pics with native resolutions and not some low res crappy pics. Try these for example,

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/2/8/5/4/3/2/360_011.jpg.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/2/8/5/4/3/2/PC_011.jpg.jpg

(Oh, and fallout 3 on PS3 has better normal maps than X360 version, but X360 version has better shadows than PS3 version. PC has both. ;) )

You can see some missing stuff in X360 version in those pictures. Consoles are holding PC versions back and very badly. I bought my PC about 3-4 years ago and I still can play these new multiplatform games with ease. Not of course with resolution beyond HD, but better than neither HD console can do(Usually 1280x1024). :P

I also think that at least physX will make some difference between PC and console versions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY&feature=related



New crap available on mi pages!

FKNetwork on 27 April 2009
Deneidez said:
Reasonable said:
Slimebeast said:

Not a significant difference. Bump maps, HDR, textures, normal maps, parallax maps, shadows - everything is the same on PC and PS360, xcept for the little cut off in view distance on the PS360 version of Fallout 3. Generally the difference is only in a little AA/AF (and notice that these are hardware effects, not differences in the game versions ifself) and sometimes slightly compressed textures on PS360.

We must different eyes because when I play Fallout 3, or Oblivion or CoD4 on a PC vs 306/PS3 I see a pretty decent difference in overall image quality - doesn't affect gameplay of course, the good bits are still good and the bad bits are still bad.  But visuall there is a significant difference so far as I can see.  Checking out the site where I think you got the Fallout 3 images their analysis seems to point to a pretty big difference between the PC and console versions.

However, as per Squill's point (and I think you echoed the same sentiment) it doesn't seem quite as massive as you'd imagine, which I think is down to the developers rather than the PC platform - i.e. if you're making Fallout 3 or CoD4 would you really sink that much more into the title to make it shine vs PS3/360 or would you simply give it a graphics hike and call it a day?

While I see lots of 360 is holding the PS3 version back rubbish I am starting to feel the 360/PS3 versions are holding the PC versions back a tad.  For sure they're resulting in less well coded PC versions judging by the high level of bugs present in a lot of recent high profile PC versions of big titles.

.

Also Slimebeast should try to use pics with native resolutions and not some low res crappy pics. Try these for example,

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/2/8/5/4/3/2/360_011.jpg.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/2/8/5/4/3/2/PC_011.jpg.jpg

(Oh, and fallout 3 on PS3 has better normal maps than X360 version, but X360 version has better shadows than PS3 version. PC has both. ;) )

You can see some missing stuff in X360 version in those pictures. Consoles are holding PC versions back and very badly. I bought my PC about 3-4 years ago and I still can play these new multiplatform games with ease. Not of course with resolution beyond HD, but better than neither HD console can do(Usually 1280x1024). :P

I also think that at least physX will make some difference between PC and console versions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0xRJt8rcmY&feature=related

LMAO! those differences are SO small that 99% of gamers wouldn't notice (and I prefer the colour palette on the 360 version, pc version looks very washed out), if you want to pay loads of money upgrading your pc just to have minimal differences from the console versions then good for you, makes you a real man lol but to me that is a HUGE waste of money, I prefer playing on my 360 and my 52" 1080P HD TV in my living room,

Woohoo, Fallout 3 on the PC has some extra rocks that are missing out of the 360 version, amazing! gamers are really going to stop and look for things like that aren't they,

FAIL......

 

 



greenmedic88 on 27 April 2009

Fallout 3 is a really bad example of how much better PC hardware is for gaming. Everyone knows it is, but the visual differences have dropped to the point where only the enthusiasts are going to notice the difference.

Those screen shots in particular did nothing but demonstrate the difference in lighting effects, which were by far the most drastic difference.

So is it really worth noting the difference? No. Only if you want to run the game at a higher native render resolution than 1280x720, which is by far the most common resolution used for both the Xbox and the PS3.

Also, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Unreal Tournament III, Orange Box... I'm pretty much going down a list of games I have on both a PS3/Xbox and on PC.

Beyond render resolution, AA and typically frame rate, the visuals are far more similar than not.

While *I* notice the difference enough to buy the games again for an overclocked gaming PC (they all run fine on a stock clock Core2 Quad system as well), it's mainly because I prefer the sharper visuals and the smoother frame rates. Does it actually make the graphics look better? Not really, no. But as a fine detail person, I prefer it just like I prefer BD movies to DVD.

If a console was actually capable of rendering all games at 1920x1080 native at about 60fps (at that resolution, 2-4xAA would be nice but optional) I'd see a lot less reason to buy multiplatform games on PC. But as it were....

But I just have to disagree with this perceived "chasm" of graphical difference the PC pundits seem to be claiming. I think in most cases, they're more enamored with the platform and the hardware itself than anything else.

It's not like the difference is anywhere near as arresting as it is between jumping from a game on a SD console and an HD console.



vlad321 on 27 April 2009
FKNetwork said:
vlad321 said:
Million said:
Big woot , i'll still most probably be playing on consoles regardless. Sitting @ PC playing games = meh IMO, playing on PSN or XBL with friends = FTW.

 

I'd rather get my ears clawed off by cats than to play on PSN or XBL and communicate to or be communicated by others. Not to mention you have ot PAY for XBL. That's absolute FAIL right there.

In your opinion,

I would MUCH rather pay for xbox live (£3 a week, wow, really costs a fortune lol) as it is MUCH more enjoyable than sitting on your pc alone in a dark room, consoles are far more social than pc's could EVER be (in terms of gaming), 

 

 

pc gaming = geeky that noone really cares about anymore,

console gaming = FTW that almost everyone gets involved in, families, friends, children, old people etc

 

 

Ask your average joe public what pc game they like and i bet they wouldn't have a clue what your going on about, then ask them what console games they enjoy, there is your answer lol

 

The only time a console is more social than the PC is when the people are playing in the same room. However PSN and Live usually don't fall under that. When you step online, you can really tell the difference between a PC and a Console. Only one word describes the oline of the consoles and that's pathetic.Also PC comunities are far more mature, open to discussion, and online, generally more open. I also forgot to mention LAN parties. A LAN party is basically the same thing that happens when you get people playing your console in the same room, multiplied by about 10 times more fun.

 

Average joe is also a fucking idiot. Which also explains why the games for consoles are so fucking dumbed down and outright shitty in comparison to PC centric ones. Your average Joe also drinks beer, I drink Cognac. Does that make cognac worse? Hell no.

I'm looking for more fail posts out of you to entertain me through work.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
largedarryl on 27 April 2009

I skipped half this thread, but off the top of my head, these 3 games are undeniably superior to anything on consoles.
-Crysis
-Crysis Warhead (the improvement in faces over Crysis deserves a separate point)
-Empire Total War

In fact, I could make an entire thread talking about how E:TW is so much the superior of console games, but I don't really have the time.



Slimebeast on 27 April 2009
greenmedic88 said:
Fallout 3 is a really bad example of how much better PC hardware is for gaming. Everyone knows it is, but the visual differences have dropped to the point where only the enthusiasts are going to notice the difference.

Those screen shots in particular did nothing but demonstrate the difference in lighting effects, which were by far the most drastic difference.

So is it really worth noting the difference? No. Only if you want to run the game at a higher native render resolution than 1280x720, which is by far the most common resolution used for both the Xbox and the PS3.

Also, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Unreal Tournament III, Orange Box... I'm pretty much going down a list of games I have on both a PS3/Xbox and on PC.

Beyond render resolution, AA and typically frame rate, the visuals are far more similar than not.

While *I* notice the difference enough to buy the games again for an overclocked gaming PC (they all run fine on a stock clock Core2 Quad system as well), it's mainly because I prefer the sharper visuals and the smoother frame rates. Does it actually make the graphics look better? Not really, no. But as a fine detail person, I prefer it just like I prefer BD movies to DVD.

If a console was actually capable of rendering all games at 1920x1080 native at about 60fps (at that resolution, 2-4xAA would be nice but optional) I'd see a lot less reason to buy multiplatform games on PC. But as it were....

But I just have to disagree with this perceived "chasm" of graphical difference the PC pundits seem to be claiming. I think in most cases, they're more enamored with the platform and the hardware itself than anything else.

It's not like the difference is anywhere near as arresting as it is between jumping from a game on a SD console and an HD console.

 

 

Good post. This is exactly how I feel. I like to put $500 or $1000 on a good gaming PC regularily mostly because I love the hardware, the upgrades, spechs and stuff and I like the potential of playing games like Crysis (also STALKER and Empire Total War were good examples of PC exclusives with advanced graphics, but there arent many of them) and it's always nice to run games with 16AF and 4-8xAA in 1920x1200 res, but I just feel I have to be honest and say that Bioshock (Oblivion and all the other examples, see a few posts above for screen comparisons) don't look much worse on my X360 than on my PC running in 1920x1200 on a 24 inch screen.



Cueil on 27 April 2009
Slimebeast said:
greenmedic88 said:
Fallout 3 is a really bad example of how much better PC hardware is for gaming. Everyone knows it is, but the visual differences have dropped to the point where only the enthusiasts are going to notice the difference.

Those screen shots in particular did nothing but demonstrate the difference in lighting effects, which were by far the most drastic difference.

So is it really worth noting the difference? No. Only if you want to run the game at a higher native render resolution than 1280x720, which is by far the most common resolution used for both the Xbox and the PS3.

Also, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Unreal Tournament III, Orange Box... I'm pretty much going down a list of games I have on both a PS3/Xbox and on PC.

Beyond render resolution, AA and typically frame rate, the visuals are far more similar than not.

While *I* notice the difference enough to buy the games again for an overclocked gaming PC (they all run fine on a stock clock Core2 Quad system as well), it's mainly because I prefer the sharper visuals and the smoother frame rates. Does it actually make the graphics look better? Not really, no. But as a fine detail person, I prefer it just like I prefer BD movies to DVD.

If a console was actually capable of rendering all games at 1920x1080 native at about 60fps (at that resolution, 2-4xAA would be nice but optional) I'd see a lot less reason to buy multiplatform games on PC. But as it were....

But I just have to disagree with this perceived "chasm" of graphical difference the PC pundits seem to be claiming. I think in most cases, they're more enamored with the platform and the hardware itself than anything else.

It's not like the difference is anywhere near as arresting as it is between jumping from a game on a SD console and an HD console.

 

 

Good post. This is exactly how I feel. I like to put $500 or $1000 on a good gaming PC regularily mostly because I love the hardware, the upgrades, spechs and stuff and I like the potential of playing games like Crysis (also STALKER and Empire Total War were good examples of PC exclusives with advanced graphics, but there arent many of them) and it's always nice to run games with 16AF and 4-8xAA in 1920x1200 res, but I just feel I have to be honest and say that Bioshock (Oblivion and all the other examples, see a few posts above for screen comparisons) don't look much worse on my X360 than on my PC running in 1920x1200 on a 24 inch screen.

the size of your monitor also affects the looks of a game... unfortantly your 24 incher puts my 17 to shame... I've never even used anything bigger than 17

 



 
Get your Portable ID!

Mudface on 27 April 2009

I always find it funny when someone bangs on about PC gaming being expensive in one breath, then declare they game on a 52" HDTV in the next...



largedarryl on 27 April 2009
Mudface said:
I always find it funny when someone bangs on about PC gaming being expensive in one breath, then declare they game on a 52" HDTV in the next...

This is something I have heard many times.  If you mention this to them, they will then go on to tell you that since its a TV it is a needed piece of electronics, hence not part of their gaming cost (although this argument is not valid if I use my PC on my TV).