Check out a video comparison between the PS3 and PC versions of Bioshock Infinite.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense o.O Clearly the PC version will have better everything, this is no surprise. Either way though, this game is gorgeous and I can't wait to get it. Just makes more sense to compare the 360 version to PS3 instead of the PC version.
Personally i dont think its a matter of which one is better any more. Everyone knows even low end PCs have been stomping consoles for years now(500usd PCs from 3 years back have been running circles around current consoles), hence thats not even a debate any more. Hell 600 usd PCs of today are already rivaling next gen console specs. Hence PC vs current gen console isnt even a question any more hasnt been for a while. Point is you buy a copy on the PC today, its yours to keep. Console.. well you wont be able to play it on the PS4 hence you will always have to make sure your PS3 is around to play anything you buy now. Hence it will become bit of a hassle maintaining multiple machines just to play your older games. Its for this reason id say PC version easily wins, not just the graphics or the frame rate. @IcyEyes No need getting offended over facts: Uncharted - ill agree with you on that one, but not for the graphics, for the artistic side yes i will agree. Killzone, Gow really? One is filled with blurry textures, the other is a fixed view game with low res textures every where. From a graphical perspective all of those games will get mauled by a game like BF3, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Shogun 2 running on a 500usd PC. As for the BC, hardware inevitably fails. Nothing lasts forever and even then good luck having multiple machines and their accessories hanging around a TV, IMO thats just a mess.
Even the low end pc stomp console ? I love you PC fanboy looks like you live in another world ... looks like they never saw games like Uncharted, Killzone, GoW, etc ... And the point about "you will not play over the Ps4" ... I mean ... even my 4 yo old niche are able to understand NO ONE will come to your house and destroy your Ps3/X360 ... So you are able to play forever that game on console (I can still continue to play the original Mario on nintendo...). So, please, change you opinion, because its heavily flawed.
"Even the low end pc stomp console ?" Wake up, yes they do. As of today anything with a 80-100usd GPU will beat current consoles. Id go one step further and say integrated GPUs present on Intel CPUs would give current consoles a run for their money. Thats the lowest hardware on the GPU food chain. @IcyEyes Read decrypts post again. He never was claiming graphics superiority since that is a moot point at this moment, everyone knows that. However the BC is a valid point. I would personally like all my games to be at one place. Instead of having to switch between system back and forth. I already have over 200 games on Steam and i think its amazing i dont have to worry about not being able to play them once the next gen is out.
And what about those of us who have friends that want to do co op or something in the same room. Crapping up around a computer monster instead of my living room tv doesn't sound appealing...
@T900: you need to wake up ... because you dont really understand the meaning of that post. Remeber .. raw power ... "high numbers" and benchmark dont make your games better. Thats why we can still amaze when we see games like The Last of us running over a a 7yo console ... that will ring a bell! Edit : Its not the point talk about power of PC .. the point is an old gen hardware like a ps3/x360 still hold pretty well ... thats all!
@IcyEyes No point being biased. Yes all of us like some of the Sony exclusives and Sony has done a good job with that old hardware. However its true PC just is way ahead of current consoles, even the low end hardware is ahead only a blind fanboy will deny these facts.
@cayleee Sure! Its pretty obvious the pc hardware is a LOT ahead over the console hardware, no body can deny that! I want to point to the fact that a so old hardware still holding great ! Nothing more ... and I dont like comment likes Decrypt do because taliking about the power is really nothing. You cannot really say a 600$ rig can still fight over a PS4 because I really, really will shut up when I will see a 600$ rig running even a game like Killzone 3. My PC spec is (that one I use for gaming and work) are over-the-top and I still cannot have a game that make Uncharted blush. I talk about what i see over my monitor and not under the hood. We are not talking anymore Ps2 vs Pc, were the gap in few years was "embarrassing". The day the difference between ps3/x360 and Pc are not just a resolution or a couple of lights, well, we can say PC stomps consoles. PS the jcornish's comment is a good point and I agree ...
decrypt wrote : "From a graphical perspective all of those games [Uncharted, Killzone, GoW] will get mauled by a game like BF3, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Shogun 2 running on a 500usd PC. " And thats why you lose your credibility. Because thats not true at all, unless you set everything on low setting and geeez ... why I will play a game that looks so bad over a 500$ pc ? No way, you really say a not so smart thing.
Why would you buy a game for the PS3 to play it on another system? If you want to play PS3 games so bad keep your PS3 games and play them :/
@thegamerchick "And thats why you lose your credibility. Because thats not true at all, unless you set everything on low setting" Its true 500usd PCs will run most games and they will do it maxed out specially games running Unreal 3 engines. Heres a link to one: http://www.tomshardware.com... this ones 500usd and is capable of running BF3 @ 1080p at 55fps with 4x AA ultra settings. Games like bioshock should be a cake walk for this machine. Below is a link to the BF3 benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.com...
Uh before you spurt out information that you don't understand or know, I own a PC that cost about 545 bucks, and guess what, it's not 3 years old. It's runs everything at the highest setting besides BF3, and even then for the price that's an amazing PC.
the video is not even in 1080P I have a gaming PC and consoles hook up to the same TV, I see a big difference in drawing distance, texture quality etc. If you want to argue current consoles looks good for the money, I agree with you. But still with a mid range PC games looks significantly better.
Are you serious ..........Uncharted and Killzone have better graphics that a lot of PC games and in a machine with only 512Mb of RAM and seven years in the market. Bioshock is almost identical in PC and PS3. The same happens with Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider and Crysis 3 500 USD PC ? only a decent graphic card cost almost 250 USD and windows licence almost 50. You like PC is Ok, but don't insult the PS3
T900 & decrypt are the same person.
@GABRIEL1030 PC and PS3 versions of Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider are almost identical? lol. Digital Foundry would like a word with you. "Crysis 3 on PC effectively offers a "next-gen now" experience - a preview of the level of technical prowess we should expect in the years to come from the new wave of consoles" http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... On the PC ... a more refined looking game, one that is a clear step above the console releases - especially if your PC can pull off a sustained 1080p60 or better http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Gaberial, that is not true i played Bioshock 1 on PC first and it was amazing. I played it later on ps3 for trophies and for fun loved the game and the lighting the detail in the water the guys were all way way way better on PC. This was back when it released too. I don't care to argue pc vs console but don't lie. Bioshock 1 on pC due to graphics set a way way better opening atmosphere.
Actually, I think the PS3 version looks pretty dang nice.
Still not a major difference in a lot of multiplatform games.
Give it up guys you could compile links to newegg for all the components, run benchmarks, show side by side screen shots and they'd still disagree with you. The level of cognitive dissonance is amazing. Uncharted etc. look great therefore cheap PC can't do it. No it can't. I said no no no. La la la can't hear you. Haha
According to the technical director of the developer itself, Medium on PC is about the same as console settings, but even that is slightly better.... http://uk.ign.com/wikis/bio... Unreal Engine 3+ runs easily on pretty modest hardware on PC. On the same link the same Technical director explains the difference in anything higher the difference is enormous, high, very high, ultra etc Unfortunately the video above is not exceptionally good quality so I won't take it as much use. Thats always a problem here, you need high bitrate high resolution to see such a gap which is usually extremely noticeable when you actually have games running side by side as I have many many times. You might see it better in the inevitable digital foundry comparison.
My pc from long time ago with a gt220 runs multiplats way better.
A low end PC will NOT run games better than a console, you need mid end at least. In 2004 my 6800 Ultra could not run HL2 or Doom 3 at a constant 60fps on high settings, it had parts that dropped as low as 20, i dread to think how bad it would've run on a lower end card. Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor lagged on 1 8800 GT, keeping in mind thats at or above recommended specs for those games or way over minimum at least. With 2 8800 GT's the framerate was much better. Then i moved toa 5870 which currently runs what i want fine at 1080P. Basically though if you want good framerates, you always need above recommended specs of a game. Except when we get poor games like Crysis, they run like crap on even high end comps on release. When i do a full upgrade i usually spend near £1k or over, because it lasts years, i still have a first gen i7 920 and its still pretty beast, just need to upgrade my graphics card and im set for another while again.
L4D lagged on a 8800GT? Haha, there's something wrong with your PC. Your graphics card smashes the two games you mention. Know how I know? Because I have a 8800GTX and mine obliterates them. Yes...my lowly GPU which is only a bit better than the 8800GT completely destroys L4D.
@Thefreeman012 It all depends on your PC setup. You may have it in a room where gathering around the monitor will be perfectly comfortable. Also, more are more PC gamers these days seem to be using their PC's with TV's instead of monitors, anyway. Certain cases do look great underneath the TV stand.
I hope people that are judging these pc games get to see them in person and not just by videos online. Video codecs used on sites like youtube and the one above just don't do the justice they should in supposed "1080p hd" for pc games. When I watch these videos on the same rig I play them on, the difference is amazing. I would say videos on the net, such as the "pc" version above look much more like their console counterparts than pc ones at this point. They just lack the general sharpness I guess. Not to mention getting over 60 fps in games on a 120hz monitor is just the shiznip. You won't get anywhere near that experience with youtubes capped 30fps output.
A PC good enough to run this game better than a PS3 is going to cost you a lot more than a PS3... and the PC version in this comparison doesn't look anywhere near good enough to justify that extra cost in my eyes.
@frosty 500usd Pcs are playing BF3 at ultra settings 4x aa near 60 fps. Thats not a whole lot expensive than a PS3. Its about next gen console price, so will you abadon next Playstation too because it cost more than a PS3?
ps3 stomps pc in games. The pc version looks the way it does because of the ps3 version. PC games can look way better than this though.
I love N4G these days. N4G has become so simple to use. I just have to look if a comment has more Agrees or more Disagrees and I click the one that has less clicks and my opinion is well represented. It's just the opposite of the early PS3 years. :D
@thefreeman012 You do realize you can hook your PC up to just about any HDTV right? mine is hooked up to a samsung tv right now. also i play on ps3, pc, and xbox. @icyeyes i mostly play games on my pc now, but u r def. right about those great exclusives on ps3. But please stop saying that damn word fanboy. really its just so annoying when people fight over pointless sht. how about we think of the gaming industry as a whole?
You clowns never fail to amaze me with these pointless arguments on the internet.
"that is not true i played Bioshock 1 on PC first and it was amazing. I played it later on ps3 for trophies and for fun loved the game and the lighting the detail in the water the guys were all way way way better on PC. " Not at all ! i was playing at that time with a top quad core + 8800gt, and bioshock or dead space was not on par with best ps3 exclusives...never (and ps3 was already 2 years old)
"low end PCs have been stomping consoles for years now(500usd PCs from 3 years back have been running circles around current consoles" $500 PCs 3 years ago "running circles around current consoles"? $400 of PC hardware (you're not getting away with pretending like Windows is free because you can steal it, nor pretending like consoles can never be found cheaper than MSRP 'unlike' Pc components) in 2009 "running circles" around the 360 and Ps3? Bulllllllls**t. Better, sure, but not anywhere near "running circles around"
Why are PS3 and PC versions are compared you ask? Because as of now those are the only gaming devices that matter. Until PS4 comes out. Then it will be PS4, PS Vita and PC. :)
The only low end pc that outperform consoles are custom built ones, maybe its just me but every cheap pc i have ever seen has integrated graphics and consoles are better than integrated graphics.
PS3 costs $299 RRP in the US. No $299 PC would play Shogun 2 on any settings above high, and most likely would only go to medium or even low. Have you played Shogun 2 on high settings? My computer only plays it on high as the max and current gen consoles look better, generally. Textures etc on high are all very low res, lots of pop in. PS3 has been $299 for 3 years or more now. A PC that cost $299 in March 2010 would struggle to run GTAIV on settings comparable to what consoles do at a playable frame rate. It comes down to comparing a static hardware model to an ever evolving hardware. It's impossible and redundant. Cheap PC's may have caught up to consoles by now but frankly nobody is surprised. Why its a source of so much debate in the gaming community I have no idea. Consoles are a different experience to PCs. The interaction is completely different. PC gamers need not feel threatened by consoles. They are gaming machines in a different form. Why the fuss?
The difference isn't all that spectacular from these video's.
I think that's the point. It amazes me how the PS3 can still hold up. Quite impressive, IMO. (yeah, yeah, you PC creeps keep disagreeing). It's impressive how much more devs can squeeze out of that box 5 years after launch. It's a little bit of a mixed bag, though. Feature wise (image fidelity, etc) it's all there. But with the price of the frame rate, no doubt. Visuals like that tax the PS3 quite a bit and tearing is all over the place. I'd need to play this myself to see if it makes it unplayable, but I am rather in awe of those visuals, tbh. Makes you think why we need a new console ;) Attack to my wallet is getting a little be bad, this time around, though. This, Tomb Raider and more coming will do some damage, me thinks
"I think that's the point. It amazes me how the PS3 can still hold up. Quite impressive, IMO." Hell yea its pretty amazing how it has managed to hang up with low end PCs. Try playing Farcry 3, Crysis(any in the series), Skyrim, Dragon age, BF3 and then tell us how well its held up lol.
Not visually, but the screen tearing and frame rate are pretty obvious, and I'm usually blind to those things. I have a feeling this game will make its way to the PS4 since it would be a pretty simple port, so I'd be interested to see a PS4 and PC comparison.
@reynod 7 agrees. 3 more and that's all of PC gamers with high-end PCs.
I hope people that are judging these pc games get to see them in person and not just by videos online. Video codecs used on sites like youtube and the one above just don't do the justice they should in supposed "1080p hd" for pc games. When I watch these videos on the same rig I play them on, the difference is amazing. I would say videos on the net, such as the "pc" version above look much more like their console counterparts than pc ones at this point. They just lack the general sharpness. I am not exaggerating when I say they are much closer to the console versions than the pc in overall quality... Not to mention getting over 60 fps in games on a 120hz monitor is just the shiznip. You won't get anywhere near that experience with youtubes capped 30fps output.
Well its not that much of a difference, but when compared side by side, u will notice faster frame rates and its much clearer on pc. but the ps3 version still looks pretty good.
@reynod Why don't you try running them with 512mb of ram (not to mention it't 256 of vram) at 30fps?
Yeah, becouse the game doesnt look spectaculat even on PC
How does it not make sense??? You do realize that some people have PS3, 360 AND a PC? I for one wanted to see this because I am debating if the differences are big enough to grant getting it on PC. I know, mind blowing...
Really? Your really need a comparison video to tell you if the PC version is going to look better than the PS3 version? Ok then... The main flaw I see in your logic for using these videos to help you make a buying decision is while every PS3 owners is going to enjoy the same experience, unless you know the specs of the test system and have the exact same specs, or something you know to be similar, how on earth is this video indicative of the results you might see on YOUR PC? Depending on your setup, you're PC version might look far different than what we see in the video, or what I might see on my PC. Personally, I think these comparisons are just a pissing contest for insecure pixel counters. The game looks like it's amazing on every platform.
Take the PS3 specs and build a pc with the same or similar specs with 5 yr old tech. I'll give you some lee way on the CPU and allow a current 3 yr old quad core. Now try playing this game on this extremely poor budget, thrift store PC and get better frame rates and visual graphics than the PS3. Then the consoles would "be on even ground" with PCs.
^^ Don't bother arguing. Is useless. I have a Notebook from 2008, it was quite state of the art back then. Dual Core T8300 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR866, QuadroFx 570 256MB (!!!). Yeah, you can laugh at it today, but the Fx570 is 2 generations after the RSX, 4GB is a lot more memory and well, the T8300 isn't that fast, but anyhow, you't think it would at least play games on console level; having a faster GPU and is 2 years younger. Not a chance. Even with lowest settings and 720p it stalls left and right. But useless arguing. Because you could simply throw a $1000 at it and get a quad i7 Notebook, I get it.
@Ju Notebooks or laptops arent ment for gaming. The ones that are, are luxury items and will cost quite a bit. Specially the ones you are refering to isnt even ment for gaming. Its ment for graphics designing. Also for reference Mobile versions of GPUs are much much weaker than their desktop counterparts. Hence it would take a GPU 3-4 generations later in mobile terms to even catch up with a desktop part. You should instead be comparing RSX to something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Produ... Its 89usd and will completely wipe the floor with the RSX.
@ju: the QuadroFX 570 is only based on silicon one generation ahead of the RSX (although not necessarily comparable), and it's also a professional grade GPU that it NOT meant for gaming, and a mobile part. That chip wouldn't compete with even the RSX for gaming. The Quadro part would be better than the RSX for rendering a static 3D scene as all the stream processors have algorithms suited perfectly for that kind of work, but they are not suited for fast paced rendering or Direct X.
Well if u have a high end pc, y wouldnt u just get it on there? it would be a much better experience.
"omg why do this?" -textbook frustrated reply from console fans in every comparison that involves a PC. Always seems to have a display image of some Ps3 exclusive character too. Wonder why. Some of us own all 3 platforms, that's why. What is so hard to understand about that? If a game is a poor port to the PC instead of become properly developed for it (or "using its full potential" as Ps3 try-hards always seem to say), we'll want to know. Don't get all bent out of shape just because your favourite console keeps being out-performed. When it comes down to 360 vs Ps3, 90% of the time you only ever really get a slight difference between both anyway.
Games are designed for the device with the lowest specifications which makes it easier to port over.
It doesnt make sense to compare the 2 because 1.you cant set your graphics on a console like a pc you play with what they give you.& 2. 9times out of 10 a pc version of a multiplat will look better than its console version. But eh what ever makes the elitist feel better.Its like bragging about having a airplane in a car and bike club :p quite annoying reading the same comments over and over.
Looks like whoever did the comparison forgot to click the full range HDMI function on the PS3 yet again
personally PS3 looks better, PC looks cartoony and lacks warmth in the colour pallet
The usual.. Better textures and deep of field for PC.. Nothing new or spectacular.. If someone show me a PC game that match this we then talk... http://www.polygon.com/2013...
I get what you mean but sometimes with PC versions of a game you get the odd port that lack a significant leap in visual quality from a console version. But nonetheless, the game looks great on both platforms. If you have a PC that can run this game at decent settings you'd probably buy the PC version otherwise just get the game on whatever console you own or prefer...
This is necessary because many PS4 fanboys like to think that the PS4 surpasses PC graphics, when it's obvious that Sony still has a long way to go.
ps3 did pretty well
why compare console to PC? it makes no sense, PC are so much more capable of handling better graphics, should compre to the PS3 instead. However neither of them will come close to PC.
Why? Looks pretty awesome, IMO. And is quite close to the PC. That's why this is interesting. What's the point of comparing two platforms which are basically the same?
I agree. It's pretty much identical except for lower contrast and maybe higher brightness in PS3 footage which can be easily adjusted.
A PS3 has no chance of standing up to a pc with a high end graphics card, the PC would eat the PS3 for FPS, Resolution, and just all round quality of the image, however i do find that some games are better played with a controller (far cry 3 is one) but take battlefield 3 for example, to me its so much easier to play on a PC rather that a contoller with a console.
AGAIN, How does it not make sense??? You do realize that some people have PS3, 360 AND a PC? I for one wanted to see this because I am debating if the differences are big enough to grant getting it on PC. I know, mind blowing...
Why are people so sensitive about these comparisons. I don't even own a PC but would still like to see what I'm missing out on. The only pointless comparisons are the ps3/360 ones where you need a microscope to see the differences.
Looks like a cartoon on either format. About time they made the graphics/physics/gameplay match the level of their plots.
I'd rather they focus on the story of the game than the way it looks. And it seems like they did just that.