At what point will console graphics be outdated?

[Tbird87]

agreed, but my point i guess is that visuals arent everyhting in regards to consoles being outdated, look at games like MW2, great on consoles, horrible on PC (so ive heard) that game was designed for consoles and converted for PC. although im sure the game looks better on the PC, gameplay and MP play is decreased, regardless of the setup. as long as companys follow that trend consoles will never be outdated because of the market. its true that if consoles was never invented, the gaming industry would likely be further along, the industry is holding it back, therfore consoles will never be outdated.

The only reason MW2 would be worse on a PC is because most of us want our standard features that we expect a game to have especially if the previous game had all of them. The console version didn't really get anything taken away from it because it was already stripped down compared to pc so you don't have people complaining.

Also, no, console games are not running at true 1080p. It is called upscaling, and upscaling looks like ass.

Also this ^^^

It's probably pointless to argue if you haven't compared them straight up, but it really does look like ass, its not bad if I sit back a few more feet away.

 

[deweatherly]

im not an expert so bear with me,
How important is FPS when it comes to graphics??? also, how big a deal/how common is frame tearing???
on MW2 the 360 averaged 57.31FPS, is that good, decent, or horrible?? how does that compare to PC?
just wondering
http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=16236

 

[Dan_D]

im not an expert so bear with me,
How important is FPS when it comes to graphics??? also, how big a deal/how common is frame tearing???
on MW2 the 360 averaged 57.31FPS, is that good, decent, or horrible?? how does that compare to PC?
just wondering
http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=16236

Screen tearing can occur quite often but you can eliminate it with V-sync though not everyone wants to do that. It does add a "floaty feeling" to some games. MW2 included. I don't notice the tearing much on my system in MP mode but I do notice it much more often in single player games. I can usually maintain 80FPS+ regardless of what is happening on screen. The main thing is that it never drops below 55 to 60FPS no matter what happens. This allows for an extremely satisfying and responsive game play experience. As far as graphics go, for comparison, running the game at 2560x1600 with 4xAA is more than quadruple the resolution with twice the AA than the XBOX 360 is capable of. Texturing is going to be different as well. I don't know what size textures the XBOX 360 version uses, but the PC version could use much higher resolution textures given that most video cards now have at least 512MB of RAM. Higher end cards routinely have 1GB of RAM with 2GB cards around the corner. As I recall the entire XBOX 360 only has about 522MB of RAM including 10MB of dedicated AA memory.

 

[Infaustium]

Outdated? Not yet, depending on how far any given developer has pushed 360 hardware and on what set-up you're running.

Despite the usually large difference in visuals between consoles and PC, I've experienced on my 37" HD LCD TV, my 360 looking pretty damn impressive with games developed with truly solid visuals.

Some games definitely reach the "level" of looking as they would on a solid mid-range+ rig, such as Gears of War 1 & 2, which look astounding on my set-up. Borderlands as well, looks incredible on my set-up.

You have to admit that some developers have really been pushing the limits of what the 360 can actually do in terms of visuals, and if you have the right set-up, it's not something that can be denied. Sure, upscaling doesn't look "tremendous", but for many games, I'd not say it "looks like ass", by any means.

I'd say that, if it weren't for aliasing, that some games would look almost no different from what they would on a high-end rig, because otherwise, the visuals are definitely "there" on some titles, it's just the aliasing that can get ya if it's bad enough.

Sure, there's not quite the same crispness or FOV as can be achieved on PC, but I'd be hard-pressed to say that such games as I mentioned above look like "ass" when, quite the contrary, they look excellent for me on my set-up.

I've been a hardcore PC gamer for the last decade, and have spent much money over the years for high-end hardware, but have always owned consoles as well, since the "early days", and still love them for quite a few titles.

I don't feel the visuals are "outdated" quite yet, which again, you'd see clearly on a good 360/LCD TV set-up, though I wish there were a way to do away with aliasing (which is particularly almost always worse on PS3, from my experience).

If that were the case, honestly, I'd probably be gaming even more on 360, which I'm beginning to do anyway, due to visuals being great, but more-so due to control schemes/feel of multiplatform releases are more and more feeling far more befitting on console than PC.

Absolutely, there's nothing like the quality of PC visuals, which can offer more immersion for gamers as well, but being totally objective about the subject, I'd have to say that, with quite a few titles, the visuals on 360 with a good LCD TV are damn impressive and comparable to a solid PC rig which, even then, can experiencing some aliasing anyway.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

*snip*

For me, the problem with consoles = textures and resolution. I have a nice 1080p tv; it is night and day when I plug in the 360 vs. PC. I am happy with the quality of current gen consoles when I am just drinking beer with the buddies, but for the late night solo gaming, I get distracted by it.

I have also noticed sometimes the 360 dropping below 30fps in games, and the only thing I can do about that is to play on my PC.

 

[deweatherly]

The only reason MW2 would be worse on a PC is because most of us want our standard features that we expect a game to have especially if the previous game had all of them. The console version didn't really get anything taken away from it because it was already stripped down compared to pc so you don't have people complaining.

Your right but, Console work with the current system (xbox live) with PCs it doesnt work so well, so its not really 'stripped down" becuase that system works well on console.

It's probably pointless to argue if you haven't compared them straight up, but it really does look like ass, its not bad if I sit back a few more feet away.

thats another thing, consoles players in general are never sitting right up next to the screen like PC players, i guess thats why us console players dont see the difference as well.

Screen tearing can occur quite often but you can eliminate it with V-sync though not everyone wants to do that. It does add a "floaty feeling" to some games. MW2 included. I don't notice the tearing much on my system in MP mode but I do notice it much more often in single player games. I can usually maintain 80FPS+ regardless of what is happening on screen. The main thing is that it never drops below 55 to 60FPS no matter what happens. This allows for an extremely satisfying and responsive game play experience. As far as graphics go, for comparison, running the game at 2560x1600 with 4xAA is more than quadruple the resolution with twice the AA than the XBOX 360 is capable of. Texturing is going to be different as well. I don't know what size textures the XBOX 360 version uses, but the PC version could use much higher resolution textures given that most video cards now have at least 512MB of RAM. Higher end cards routinely have 1GB of RAM with 2GB cards around the corner. As I recall the entire XBOX 360 only has about 522MB of RAM including 10MB of dedicated AA memory.

80+ jesus christ thats high!

 

[Dan_D]

I just ran through a MW2 match and on the Overpass map I got a constant 85-89FPS reading the entire time while having the game at absolute maximum settings. It did drop and spike on rare occasions. When it did so, the game never dropped below 81FPS, and spiked as high as 98FPS.

 

[deweatherly]

I haven't taken FRAPS measurements in some time and certainly not with my system in its current configuration. On my GeForce GTX 280 3-Way SLI setup I routinely hit 120FPS + on a regular basis. Most of the time it never dropped below 80FPS. On occasion when a massive amount of grenade spamming was going on I'd end up seeing drops into the mid to high 60FPS range.

thats sounds great, but how important is FPS in the whole "how good graphics are" scheme of things...
i can somewhat tell a difference on MW2 from ps3 to xbox, xbox is rated higher than the PS3 in that paticular game and when shit hits the fan it seems to run rough on the ps3

 

[Dan_D]

thats sounds great, but how important is FPS in the whole "how good graphics are" scheme of things...
i can somewhat tell a difference on MW2 from ps3 to xbox, xbox is rated higher than the PS3 in that paticular game and when shit hits the fan it seems to run rough on the ps3

Well I just did a FRAPS run to see what the actual readings are with my Radeon HD 5970. To me the difference between 2560x1600 4xAA and 1024x720 2xAA is HUGE. Not only does the game look much better, but it runs faster, and is therefore more responsive. Again those frame rates don't drop into the 60FPS realm even when the Stealth Bomber is dropping ordnance all over the place and people are grenade spamming and noob tubing all at the same time.

To me the graphics are just icing on the cake as the whole experience is better overall. Much of that comes down to the mouse and keyboard. Of course if you aren't used to it I can see how you might try it and think it was terrible. It took me sometime to get used to it when I switched from consoles to PC gaming in mid 1990's. Once I did though, I could never go back. Now I can't play and enjoy FPS games on the consoles. I can only enjoy fighting games, racing games, and the occasional 3rd person action/shooter. Though I'm not a huge fan of those on any platform.

 

[deweatherly]

Well I just did a FRAPS run to see what the actual readings are with my Radeon HD 5970. To me the difference between 2560x1600 4xAA and 1024x720 2xAA is HUGE. Not only does the game look much better, but it runs faster, and is therefore more responsive. Again those frame rates don't drop into the 60FPS realm even when the Stealth Bomber is dropping ordnance all over the place and people are grenade spamming and noob tubing all at the same time.

To me the graphics are just icing on the cake as the whole experience is better overall. Much of that comes down to the mouse and keyboard. Of course if you aren't used to it I can see how you might try it and think it was terrible. It took me sometime to get used to it when I switched from consoles to PC gaming in mid 1990's. Once I did though, I could never go back. Now I can't play and enjoy FPS games on the consoles. I can only enjoy fighting games, racing games, and the occasional 3rd person action/shooter. Though I'm not a huge fan of those on any platform.

Well the whole Keyboard and mouse vs. controller is another debate itself but, my view point is that console players love controllers and PC gamers love keyboard and mouse, so i dont think either is better than the other. IMO like i said i know PC players love it so im not bashing it, but i dont see how they like it so much... i can understand the mouse but the keyboard is not designed for gaming unlike the controller. i know when you are use to it you dont make mistakes but when i game on a keyboard my fingers always get missplaced and i end up hitting the wrong keys.
I always wondered why PC game developers havent came out with an "Gaming keyboard" a keyboard like a regular one but with less keys and grouped better. just food for thought.

 

[Ocellaris]

i can understand the mouse but the keyboard is not designed for gaming unlike the controller. i know when you are use to it you dont make mistakes but when i game on a keyboard my fingers always get missplaced and i end up hitting the wrong keys.
I always wondered why PC game developers havent came out with an "Gaming keyboard" a keyboard like a regular one but with less keys and grouped better. just food for thought.

Plenty of companies have come out with keyboard designed for gaming, along with devices like the Nostromo. Heck one company even came out with a board that lets you place your own keys on it in any arrangement you want

 

[deweatherly]

Plenty of companies have come out with keyboard designed for gaming, along with devices like the Nostromo. Heck one company even came out with a board that lets you place your own keys on it in any arrangement you want

they must not work that well, at least not well enough for the majority to use it, i guess once you get use to a certain thing its hard to change.

 

[Ocellaris]

they must not work that well, at least not well enough for the majority to use it, i guess once you get use to a certain thing its hard to change.

They work very well, however it could be the fact that most people with a computer already have a working keyboard in front of them...

 

[Carl]

I always wondered why PC game developers havent came out with an "Gaming keyboard" a keyboard like a regular one but with less keys and grouped better. just food for thought.

due to the fact that people would buy them actually most gaming keyboard have more keys not less.

 

[Dan_D]

Well the whole Keyboard and mouse vs. controller is another debate itself but, my view point is that console players love controllers and PC gamers love keyboard and mouse, so i dont think either is better than the other. IMO like i said i know PC players love it so im not bashing it, but i dont see how they like it so much... i can understand the mouse but the keyboard is not designed for gaming unlike the controller. i know when you are use to it you dont make mistakes but when i game on a keyboard my fingers always get missplaced and i end up hitting the wrong keys.
I always wondered why PC game developers haven't came out with an "Gaming Keyboard" a keyboard like a regular one but with less keys and grouped better. just food for thought.

Buttons are buttons. For a keyboard/mouse setup it doesn't matter if the keyboard was built for the purpose or not. You just press the keys you need to do the functions you need. Of course there are purpose built devices like the Nostromo N52 and the Logitech G13. There is also the Wolf Claw and a few others. They work well and are built for the job with superior ergonomics when compared to that of a standard keyboard. that's really their advantage over a normal keyboard. Actually I use the Nostromo N52 myself for that very reason.

Plenty of companies have come out with keyboard designed for gaming, along with devices like the Nostromo. Heck one company even came out with a board that lets you place your own keys on it in any arrangement you want

Exactly. Such devices do exist.

they must not work that well, at least not well enough for the majority to use it, i guess once you get use to a certain thing its hard to change.

They work great. However few people see the need or even an advantage by doing so. They just learn not to fat finger the keys on their existing keyboards and they are good to go.

They work very well, however it could be the fact that most people with a computer already have a working keyboard in front of them...

Good point. I don't think many people even think about it. They just use the keyboard they have.

Though this isn't really where the debate should go, given we are talking about graphics. From that perspective you just need to really sit down on a high end machine with a great monitor and see what the fuss is about. Though given that you are happy with consoles, you may not want to do that. As they say "ignorance is bliss" or something like that. Not saying you are ignorant, but just seeing computers running games at a friend's house or at your local Best Buy isn't the same as seeing games maxed out on a 30" LCD at 2560x1600 and playing it for several hours for yourself.

 

[deweatherly]

do you PC gamers feel that keyboard and mouse gives you an advantage over console's controller??
IMO it seems that in a FPS a mouse would be way better for aiming but as far as "driving" the player it seems that a controller would have the advantage because of the restrictions of wsad keys(no inbetween keys that im aware of).. thought on this?

 

[Chombo]

do you PC gamers feel that keyboard and mouse gives you an advantage over console's controller??
IMO it seems that in a FPS a mouse would be way better for aiming but as far as "driving" the player it seems that a controller would have the advantage because of the restrictions of wsad keys(no inbetween keys that im aware of).. thought on this?

Personally I find the mouse to be a much faster and more precise instrument for gaming. WASD keys work fine for me in a FPS setting, but for driving games a wheel and pedals is still what I use.

 

[deweatherly]

Though this isn't really where the debate should go, given we are talking about graphics. From that perspective you just need to really sit down on a high end machine with a great monitor and see what the fuss is about. Though given that you are happy with consoles, you may not want to do that. As they say "ignorance is bliss" or something like that. Not saying you are ignorant, but just seeing computers running games at a friend's house or at your local Best Buy isn't the same as seeing games maxed out on a 30" LCD at 2560x1600 and playing it for several hours for yourself.

I have seen a few games on high end machines but not that common, honestly i didnt really see a HUGE difference but then agian the game was Counter strike and MW1 (not really the most visual games) but maybe your right, i would hate to spoil my consoles! but agian, graphics are not the most important thing to me.

but i will share this short story about graphics,
I recently changed tvs on my console, i went from a 32" 720p(max setting) to a high end 37" 1080p tv, and MAN it was like a whole new world, on MW2 the graphics looked twice as better... so along with this story i dont think i want to see anyone paly crysis and ruin my consoles!

 

[Dan_D]

I have seen a few games on high end machines but not that common, honestly i didnt really see a HUGE difference but then agian the game was Counter strike and MW1 (not really the most visual games) but maybe your right, i would hate to spoil my consoles! but agian, graphics are not the most important thing to me.

but i will share this short story about graphics,
I recently changed tvs on my console, i went from a 32" 720p(max setting) to a high end 37" 1080p tv, and MAN it was like a whole new world, on MW2 the graphics looked twice as better... so along with this story i dont think i want to see anyone paly crysis and ruin my consoles!

Well Counterstirke looks like shit anyway. It wasn't even all that in the late 90's when it came out. MW1 looked better on the PC but the XBOX 360 version was surprisingly good. However, as I said before I think the XBOX 360 just scales 720P content up to 1080P. So I don't know how much difference or improvement you could really see by doing that unless the 720P TV you had just sucked or something.

 

[deweatherly]

Well Counterstirke looks like shit anyway. It wasn't even all that in the late 90's when it came out. MW1 looked better on the PC but the XBOX 360 version was surprisingly good. However, as I said before I think the XBOX 360 just scales 720P content up to 1080P. So I don't know how much difference or improvement you could really see by doing that unless the 720P TV you had just sucked or something.

yea it sucked bad it was an old Vizio, and upgraded to a new LG. but even when it was running at 720p on the new tv, it looked better. But im not sure but i believe mw2 was made at 1080p (not upscaled).
but yea MW1 looked good on the computer but i wasnt impressed on the difference, i would like to see a good game, just where i can know what i talking about more.

 

[Infaustium]

For me, the problem with consoles = textures and resolution. I have a nice 1080p tv; it is night and day when I plug in the 360 vs. PC. I am happy with the quality of current gen consoles when I am just drinking beer with the buddies, but for the late night solo gaming, I get distracted by it.

I have also noticed sometimes the 360 dropping below 30fps in games, and the only thing I can do about that is to play on my PC.

I totally agree/get where you're coming from. Textures and resolution certainly are most often night-and-day when compared to PC, but in certain cases it's not always by such a massive difference that I find myself distracted by it (though there have certainly been some games where that has been the case), or that I feel that console visuals are yet outdated.

Actually, Gears of War is a perfect example... the textures throughout most of the game were very impressive and highly detailed and realistic. I was actually shocked especially by Gears of War 2, which looks rather incredible on the 360.

Visuals on PC are, of course, far superior in general. Yet, at the same time, many games do indeed look outstanding enough on 360 and a good LCD TV for me to be impressed and fully enjoy the experience. This is a good thing, since many multiplatform games are more and more really feeling more suited for console in their mechanics/general feel of control.

Do the visuals compare to that of a high-end PC? Certainly, no... but, I wouldn't say the visuals are "outdated" as of yet, at least not with devs who are really pushing console hardware these days, and having a good LCD TV set-up that can clearly show the visuals can still be very impressive. There's obviously room for improvement with the next gen of consoles, but we wont be seeing that for a while.

I think a good comparison that will soon be able to be made will be with Just Cause 2, with which they really pushed some the visuals. Of course, the PC version will certainly look more outstanding, but I'm betting the 360 version is going to look impressive as well. I've actually been flip-flopping between which version to get, mainly due to the fact that the controls feel just a bit "wonky" on PC, though that might be adjustable with the full game.

I understand your issue with frame rates as well, though that's not a common problem that I personally have that's enough to get to me.

Sometimes a little adjustment to your TV settings and/or 360 settings can also really bring out the visuals as well, so sometimes it's worth messing around with different settings there as well.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

do you PC gamers feel that keyboard and mouse gives you an advantage over console's controller??
IMO it seems that in a FPS a mouse would be way better for aiming but as far as "driving" the player it seems that a controller would have the advantage because of the restrictions of wsad keys(no inbetween keys that im aware of).. thought on this?

FPS works great on mouse and keyboard, inbetween keys would actually detract from this experience. You use mouselook +forward, back, strafe left, strafe right. The level of control is leaps above the controller. This is why most console FPS games have autoaim enabled to start.

Even so, I play Dirt2, Batman AA, and the usual platformer games with an xbox 360 controller plugged into my PC.

This thread

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1409377

is best viewed on a high rez monitor.

 

[deweatherly]

Though to be fair, at the time you needed to have a really high end PC to keep up with what was then a $400 console.

This quote, do you guys think the next gen of consoles will be on par with the high end computers upon release?

 

[Dan_D]

This quote, do you guys think the next gen of consoles will be on par with the high end computers upon release?

Well I wouldn't say that the XBOX 360 and PS3 were "on par" with high end PCs at launch, but they certainly were on par to midrange boxes. As for the next generation, who knows? Most likely we'll see the same sort of advancements, maybe more. However given the nature of PC hardware advancement the gap will again widen in a few months to a year beyond reach of those consoles.

That's the thing. Consoles are a static design while PCs are not.

 

[kcthebrewer]

This quote, do you guys think the next gen of consoles will be on par with the high end computers upon release?

They have to be. I am expecting console manufacturers are waiting until the next big leap in performance (like close to 2x's as fast as 5970s) before any announcements which should be around 2-3 years from now.

 

[deweatherly]

I bet the cost of the next gen will be damn close to a good gaming computer, but yea i think they will be pretty close to top computer and surpased very quickly.

 

[kioras]

Well next gen consoles they will likely try to scale back on the bleeding edge hardware a little bit, to control costs.

Sony and Microsoft have lost a lot of money due to selling the ps3 and xbox 360 at a decent loss in the first few years. Not to mention in another graphics generation or so you will get near(80%) 5870 level horsepower in a small enough package to make it worthwhile. Also the top game resolution will be 1080p(1920x1080).

On the computer, the top resolution will be people using 3 monitor displays. While nvidia needs sli this generation, and for the gtx 480(Fermi) generation, I fully expect it to be built in on a hardware level with the follow up generation.

 

[Sly]

This quote, do you guys think the next gen of consoles will be on par with the high end computers upon release?

The games that were released for both PC and consoles were already a fair comparison even back when they were new. Details were toned down and levels were redesigned to be smaller.

The argument the consolers have is that once the developers get used to the tools, the quality will improve to that of the PC's. Unfortunately, the PC's evolved and the console never caught up.

I'm pretty sure the same will happen to the next gen.

 

[Sly]

No, to get 1024x720 res with medium details, a PC would cost very little.

+1
1024x768 was probably high end 10 years ago

i dont know about older games but im pretty sure most new games run at 1080p regardless, can anyone here link to a PC advertised that will run on par or above a 360 for 200? no need for a monitor but on that note, when it comes to afforadbility think about this,
when you purchase a console 99.99% of the time you will hook it up to tv that is in the living room, bedroom etc... point being you dont need a stand alone monitor... with a PC you have to purchase a new monitor or tv (i have never seen someones home tv hooked up to there computer, not sayin it doesnt happen but rare). anyways you have to factor in the cost of the monitor, so when you add that in, its economically sound to purchase a console. when its all said and done a brand new gaming pc setup usually cost around a grand brand new. while a console usually cost only $400 when you buy extra controllers, adons (wifi adapter, cooling fans, charging kits, etc)

90% of the time you already have a PC in your house. The difference between a home/office PC and a gaming PC is the video card. The other 10% you have a mac, in which case, you're out of luck.

99.99% of the time, the existing home PC may not be top of the line, but 99.99% of the time neither is your entertainment center.

99.99% of the time, when you're not gaming, you'll be using your PC for other things. 99.99% of the time, your console is just sitting there doing nothing.

 

[Sly]

do you PC gamers feel that keyboard and mouse gives you an advantage over console's controller??
IMO it seems that in a FPS a mouse would be way better for aiming but as far as "driving" the player it seems that a controller would have the advantage because of the restrictions of wsad keys(no inbetween keys that im aware of).. thought on this?

I've used a joystick, joypad, rumblepad, standard keyboard, steeringwheel, force feedback wheel.

For racing, you can use a car that will work for your controller.

Keyboards = High acceleration, medium traction. You power slide through every corner. You drive FAST. Use a feint drift if you have to. Useful for rally/drift style games, don't even try it on Nascar.

PS Style controller = Mostly acceleration, driving finess is secondary since you don't actually have that much control with the thumbsticks. Also raced against other people on the xbox, the console versions have auto correcting cars. That was my first experienced with 'consolized' games too.

Joystick = Acceleration and Brakes. You have more control on the gas and brakes as well as fine turning. And also being able to do them fast. Want instant drift? Flick your wrist and pull back, you lose traction. Push forward and instant power, then ride it around the corner. The radius of the stick is a good balance between the gas and the turn. As you know, the harder you turn, the more you have to let off the gas if you want to retain traction, the sticks hardware forces you to do that.

Wheel = Acceleration is secondary, priority is speed. You start slow, but you can follow the driving line down to the millimeter with minimal slowdowns so you can maintain that speed. Drifting is a bit harder, you can't turn the wheel fast enough to lose traction like you do with the sticks so you need to rely on either the brakes, e-brakes, or a car with lousy traction. If you drift tho, you have extremely fine control and follow the guardrail down to the millimeter.

Force Feedback Wheel = Like the regular wheel. Depending on the game, you can actually feel how much traction you have. You *want* to keep the resistance when you turn, if it suddenly gets loose, your wheels have just lost traction, so you better get them angled back ASAP. When driving fast on uneven terrain, you'll actually feel your wheels touching the ground and accordingly adjust how much you should turn the wheel without flipping your car over. Downside is that you're fighting the wheel, so it may be harder to keep full control in a drift.



Curiously, who's more likely to buy a different controller? A PC gamer or a console one? Every PC gamer i know has atleast a PS style joypad, some has a joystick, they have more options and they act on it. The console gamers i know make do with whatever comes in the box and don't try anything else. From what i've seen, a PC gamer is actually more qualified to tell which controller is best for where coz it's likely that he's regularly used more than one.

 

[deweatherly]

+1
1024x768 was probably high end 10 years ago



90% of the time you already have a PC in your house. The difference between a home/office PC and a gaming PC is the video card. The other 10% you have a mac, in which case, you're out of luck.

99.99% of the time, the existing home PC may not be top of the line, but 99.99% of the time neither is your entertainment center.

99.99% of the time, when you're not gaming, you'll be using your PC for other things. 99.99% of the time, your console is just sitting there doing nothing.

well consoles to me dont just sit there when im not playing games, i also use it for a dvd/blue ray player therfore enhancing the personal value.
i wouldnt say thats not all true about home computers, for instances i have a laptop, therefore upgrades are not really an option, also to have a good gaming computer you have to upgrade RAM and monitor. a standard monitor isnt really great for gamming IMO. many of the high end setups i have seen use 30"+ screens and most "home" computers dont use anyhting close to that.
-most console players have fairly decent tv's(when compared to home computer monitors) and you dont need a good entertainment center to have a good gaming experience, i dont have anything but my Tv although i do have Turtlebeach X4 headsets, but i only have them for latenight gaming where i dont wake up the GF.

*snip*

Im sorry i dont think i worded it right, i ment the "driving" of a character in FPS, not a racing game. for instance IMO i think on computer Sniping would have the advantage while a controller would have the advantage in Close quarter combat or run'n gun style.

 

[l337x3r1cx]

IMO console games this generation hold up pretty well, where last generation the difference was much greater. I think a lot of the reason console games still look pretty good (at least to me) is that in general you sit farther away from a 40" TV than a 22" PC monitor. So the textures and edges aren't under quite as much scrutiny as with PC gaming. I mean I've hooked up my PC to my HDTV and up close the differences are VAST, but sit down on the couch and besides the framerate the worse texture quality and resolution isn't so noticeable.

I haven't gotten a game for PC in a while, I do have a rig that could play them decently (my monitor is only 1280x1024 so I don't need killer hardware) but the visual difference isn't enough to justify picking PC over 360 and PS3 which all my friends are playing on. I do miss KB/M controls though.

 

[Staples]

I love these threads, especially the PC fanboys who think you can buy a $300 computer which is capable of the graphics of what are now 5 year old systems. I have news for you, Windows cost $100 by itself.

 

[Sly]

Im sorry i dont think i worded it right, i ment the "driving" of a character in FPS, not a racing game. for instance IMO i think on computer Sniping would have the advantage while a controller would have the advantage in Close quarter combat or run'n gun style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAkhRVOjw7c

I made this as a tutorial for my clanmates (Forgot to turn off the mic). Even tho it's a relatively open field, the grass limits visibility so it's actually a CQC map.

Lots of instances where you turn instant 180's, and precise enough to still take long range kills. You're also constantly looking around you, something that controller users don't do often.

I'd like to know if there's a video of a control pad user that can keep up with that.


PS: Also note that on the PC version of COD4, players use the 50cal machinegun to snipe

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

I love these threads, especially the PC fanboys who think you can buy a $300 computer which is capable of the graphics of what are now 5 year old systems. I have news for you, Windows cost $100 by itself.

That's funny. My last two copies of Windows (Vista x64, Win 7 x64) absolutely ravaged my wallet with a combined cost of $30. They're not pirated either, ever been to the [H]otDeals section?

 

[independantvariable]

This whole argument is silly. I love/have loved PC gaming for almost 20 years. However, I have news for some of you. The PC gaming market needs consoles, more than they need them.

The console market has been, and probably will be the "money" market for some time. As such, it doesn't really make sense for big time publishers to spend big time money to make a PC exclusive game that can push the limit of high end computer hardware. What we will end up with is basically the same game on the Console with perhaps a little more eye-candy, however, to the common place user the game will look exactly the same.

To summarize, as long as developers are focused on making money, games will be predominately created for consoles. Vis-a-vi, console graphics won't look outdated for quite some time.

 

[Ocellaris]

That's funny. My last two copies of Windows (Vista x64, Win 7 x64) absolutely ravaged my wallet with a combined cost of $30. They're not pirated either, ever been to the [H]otDeals section?

not everyome wants to sit around for years waiting for a hot deal on a windows license. most of the deals are limited time promo stuff or limited to students. when building a new system, its an accurate assumption that windows will cost $100.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

 

[deweatherly]

That's funny. My last two copies of Windows (Vista x64, Win 7 x64) absolutely ravaged my wallet with a combined cost of $30. They're not pirated either, ever been to the [H]otDeals section?

yea well that’s used or some kind of promo (like student discount etc.) you cant fator that in when comparing the two, you can buy a used Xbox for $125, still cheaper than any used gaming computer! That’s not the argument here, it’s a fact that you can game cheaper on console.
- It is also a fact that computers have superior graphics.
You have to take into consideration, the fact that (as many people pointed out in this thread) when gaming on computer, one is likely to be sitting within a couple of feet of the screen vs. on console an average of 6-8ft away, which at that distance you cannot tell the imperfections of the graphics nearly as well.
When you compare this, computer graphics are still on top but IMO its not a huge difference, therefore in the whole spectrum of things, still close to par with computer graphics.
-With all things considered, I would conclude that personal choice is the deciding factor. With console being cheaper, more convenient and personal choice (I prefer controller v. KB/M, and their community). And Computer being superior graphics, more expensive, and personal choice (dedicated servers, KB/M, their community).
-To conclude on when at what point will console graphics be outdated I would conclude that the answer is never. Console are not held to same standard as Computers due to the fact that the distance at which a players views the screen, so as long as their at least half the output in graphics of the computer, the difference is marginal therefore keeping the graphics on par.
Also, the graphics of console will never be the same as computers but they don’t have to be. The gaming industry needs both worlds to be successful; The PC players need the consoles to make it worth it to spend millions on producing a top game, and the consoles need PC's to make it worth developing the top innovative games that push the limits.

 

[Spewn]

- It is also a fact that computers have superior graphics.
You have to take into consideration, the fact that (as many people pointed out in this thread) when gaming on computer, one is likely to be sitting within a couple of feet of the screen vs. on console an average of 6-8ft away, which at that distance you cannot tell the imperfections of the graphics nearly as well.
When you compare this, computer graphics are still on top but IMO its not a huge difference, therefore in the whole spectrum of things, still close to par with computer graphics.

Oh come on, even you don't really buy that. It's like if you wake up with a girl who's not so attractive, and you try to tell your buddies "But dudes, it was dark and shit, so she didn't really look as bad as you think she did." Are they buying it? Probably not.

They're not "close to par" just because you don't CARE about them. You may not notice how much worse they are, but that doesn't make the real difference any smaller.

 

[deweatherly]

Oh come on, even you don't really buy that. It's like if you wake up with a girl who's not so attractive, and you try to tell your buddies "But dudes, it was dark and shit, so she didn't really look as bad as you think she did." Are they buying it? Probably not.

They're not "close to par" just because you don't CARE about them. You may not notice how much worse they are, but that doesn't make the real difference any smaller.

Yes i definitely buy it, heres why: (note that this isn’t to scale by any means just a comparison)

Here is an image that represents being right up to the screen of an Xbox

here is a that same shot but at a normal sitting distance (sitting on the couch around 6-8ft away)

here would be that same image on a computer, sitting at normal distance (1-2.5ft)(higher quality, the first two is reduced to a .GIF)

now i know these are drastic differences (the Xbox screen would not be that small at 6-8ft) but you get the point. yes the computer still has the better graphics but the difference is not drastic by any means at the respected distances.