Will console graphics ever beat PC graphics?
- Thread starter 6unn3r
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i think a better question would be. will people ever stop worrying about graphics and start worrying more about gameplay and fun.
crysis looks great, i might even play it again now that i have a dx10 pc or what ever but its gameplay just seemed generic fps. enemies up ahead, you shot them, move on, dead bodies behind you now. you could normally attack from multiple angles etc but that didnt seem to change much.
i want a game like crysis but one that has some strategy to it. like maybe supply lines that if you blow up a bridge before you attack a base they wont get re inforcements from the other base down the road.
crysis looks great, i might even play it again now that i have a dx10 pc or what ever but its gameplay just seemed generic fps. enemies up ahead, you shot them, move on, dead bodies behind you now. you could normally attack from multiple angles etc but that didnt seem to change much.
i want a game like crysis but one that has some strategy to it. like maybe supply lines that if you blow up a bridge before you attack a base they wont get re inforcements from the other base down the road.
They havent already? Or atleast equaled them? Cause the PS3 and 360 are doing some amazing things.
But, even if they arent, i wouldnt care. I've heard about the "is so real looking" games on the PC and how your PC freezes/crashes/slows/can't keep up/etc. I'd rather play the game then have it look pretty. Otherwise, I just bought a $50+ non interactive picture that makes my PC act dumb.
But, even if they arent, i wouldnt care. I've heard about the "is so real looking" games on the PC and how your PC freezes/crashes/slows/can't keep up/etc. I'd rather play the game then have it look pretty. Otherwise, I just bought a $50+ non interactive picture that makes my PC act dumb.
This is a ridiculous argument. The argument that a PC must be more powerful than a console because it's used to design games is also ridiculous. A console is a computer that uses the same technology you have in your PC. The difference is that it's configured for a specific purpose where a PC is designed as a multimedia platform.
That said, no, consoles will never match PC's on graphics. The one deciding factor is cost. Consoles are mass produced/marketed, they have to be in a price range the general public is willing to pay. PC's on the other hand are up to the purchaser. Have 10 grand to blow on a gaming machine, you can.
That said, no, consoles will never match PC's on graphics. The one deciding factor is cost. Consoles are mass produced/marketed, they have to be in a price range the general public is willing to pay. PC's on the other hand are up to the purchaser. Have 10 grand to blow on a gaming machine, you can.
Short answer: No, PCs will always be superior.6unn3r said:
Long answer: PCs will always be superior because consoles are PCs you can't upgrade. They are released with tech that's usually 6-12 months old in order to be affordable, which means they're already "out of date" when they come to market. It's not very difficult to find a PC with superior hardware on the launch day of a new console. And the hardware determines the graphical difference between versions of the same game.
console graphics have always beat pc graphics for me (lol I worded it that way on purpose)
for me...lol BUT I know pc is where you can actually customize it if you choose so, but the thing is I don't throw money into upgrading my computer to run ridiculous top notch stuff (well I could, but then I'd have no money to buy games -sadface- ugh)
so a pc only has the power if the user is willing to spend into it
I kinda like the whole co-op couch play buddy system tho...
but it's whatever floats your boat, you know?
for me...lol BUT I know pc is where you can actually customize it if you choose so, but the thing is I don't throw money into upgrading my computer to run ridiculous top notch stuff (well I could, but then I'd have no money to buy games -sadface- ugh)
so a pc only has the power if the user is willing to spend into it
I kinda like the whole co-op couch play buddy system tho...
but it's whatever floats your boat, you know?
When a console is released, its hardware stays static for several years (usually 7 or so).
When a piece of PC hardware is released it stays, at most, for six months at the top but then is pounded into obsolescence by desperate competition.
The constant progress that PC hardware makes is astounding: it's one of the several reasons games are best played on PC.
When a piece of PC hardware is released it stays, at most, for six months at the top but then is pounded into obsolescence by desperate competition.
The constant progress that PC hardware makes is astounding: it's one of the several reasons games are best played on PC.
they can be on par for litteraly a month. but litteraly every month a new part comes out and within a year standard gaming computers will be better in every way
All the best PC games of the past decade have been scalable, from the highest end of the spectrum, to the lowest end. Steam takes user hardware surveys every month to evaluate which technology is being phased in and out, how multi-CPU adoption trends are going, and most importantly, to find a middle-ground. They share this information with the public and their associates and they create their new games based on these stats.mariofan1000 said:
Save for a few poor examples like Crysis and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, pretty much every PC exclusive title has been workable on any below-average machine. Hell, even Mac is being accounted for. Scalability has long been one of PC gaming's biggest drawcards, and I don't think we're ever going to see that change.