When it comes to graphics, the PC has a clear advantage over consoles. Games Aktuell has collected examples of stunningly beautiful PC games that make console gamers' jaws drop.
Obviously. I think it's funny when there are graphical 'debates' between two certain types of fanboys because they're fighting for second place. Although these pictures aren't very good.
PC is indeed the most powerfull! but everybody says that PC has better looking games. (Which is slighty true..PC is capable of having pretty sweet graphics!) But name me 5 games on PC besides crysis, which look better then Killzone 3 and Uncharted 3 (And to make it a little bit fair, dont come with the stupid ''we can use 16x Anti Aliasing our in games!'' thing.) So name me 5 games!
Where can I get a gaming PC that will be relevant for at least 6 years for $300 and play Blu Rays?
I agree, most PC games don't take advantage of the hardware.
It's not simply a game looking good. Resolution is also a big factor. In my opinion, a game running at 720p and at 30fps, even if better looking, is less enjoyable than a game at 1080p+ running above 60fps. Ofcourse, this also depends on the game... some games are just fine at 30fps. However, a game such as BC2 on a triple-monitor set-up isn't the same experience as the same game on a console. Despite both versions of the game having similar visuals. PC is a different league though, sort of like Wii. It's more suitable for a PC to fight Macs than a console... it's like deciding which car has the best safety, and someone suggesting a tank. =/ PC can do lots of things, but it also costs a helluva-lot more and requires a bit of tech-knowledge to work right. But similar to rolling a bradley through downtown, it also offers a different experience. It might be clunky, but it feels good. =)
they can't because they don't exist.
wesley-dw... YOU HIT IT RIGHT ON THE NAIL!!! lOOK everyone knows that if you put the best on console vs the best on the PC... the PC would win Hands down... But the problem with games on the PC is that 99.9999 percent of games DONT max out the Strongest Pc's Graphical Potential... Because 99.999 PC'S dont have the latest graphics card and upgrades... Crysis was a fail because most PC'S could not run it well because they were too weak! Sadly all those screen shots did not look MUCH better than God of war 3 or Heavy RAIN!( The best graphics I have ever seen in any game... PC OR NOT!!!) Killzone 3 looks better than Crysis in certain points (the dam map is a canvus) And A console game called Uncharted proved that consoles can make up for their graphical weakness with great design and art style.... While Pc graphics dont have nice detail and rely on the hardware for great graphics...The fact that we are EVEN HAVING THIS DEBATE shows how the Pc games have failed to maximize the Potential of PC'S...
I dunno lunatic; some website who only reviews Racing sim games said GT5 was the best looking game on console or PC, he couldn't even think of a PC game that came close. http://n4g.com/news/663810/... Look about 33:30 to about 35:00 for his comment.
tuck it in. Your insecurity is showing.
Just this year? Metro 2033 STALKER Call of Pripyat Amnesia The Dark Descent ARMA II Operation Arrowhead Mass Effect 2
Challenge Accepted! Far Cry 2 Metro 2033 STALKER Clear Sky STALKER Call of Pripyat Fallout New Vegas Mass effect 2 Dragon Age Just Cause 2 Arma 2 Shattered Horizon
@ Lunactic and the other guy. Nope, played all of them. They dont even get close to UC3 or Killzone3 Just cause 2, and metro are close though. and LOL @ Mass Effect 2, Fallout New Vegas, and ArmA2 looking better then KZ3
Err... Play them with mods? Not sure how you can say they're not as good when KZ3/UC3 aren't even out yet. Lighting in stalker is amazing. =/ Although, it is a game I enjoy more for the gameplay than visuals, but it still has scenes that look photorealistic due to the lightings and textures. Then again, I'm a huge stalker fanboy. =x Can I include Anno 1404? I liked the visuals. EDIT: This reminded me. Someone posted this vid elsewhere. It was pretty interesting.
You forgot *****************GEARS OF WAR**************** Dirt 2, Lost Planet 2 Quake 3 (hey it still counts!) on and on...
dragon age ? the game is great but looks outdated on any platform . Even on pc with the awesome mods . I'd have ou put the witcher instead at least
How about 9? Since KZ3 and UC3 are out in 2011, I'll list some PC 2011 titles. Total War: Shogun 2 Crysis 2 The Witcher 2 Deus Ex 3 FireFall Forged By Chaos ARMA 2 Metro 2033 Rage Red Orchestra 2 Show me 1 game on consoles that looks better than Crysis. Now imagine being able to play all those games in 1080p 3D, you guys tend to get a huge hard-on for 3D titles, dunno what you're doing playing on consoles then. edit-added Rage and RO2, I'm sure there are more I missed, keep em coming.
Don't forget RAGE
@ wesley-dw Your computer is obviously of sub-standard value if you truly beleive this, let me also point out that i pinned those games against PC games that are already out and some have been out for some time. If you would like: Crysis 2 The Witcher 2 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Dead space 2 Rage Guild wars 2 Dragon Age 2 Brink Deus Ex Operation Flashpoint ...
Letros you forgot Red Orchestra 2, just one of the many games to come out in 2011 for PC. I really don't understand why console gamers get so excited over 3D. 3D has been on PC since 2008. There is a 3D Vision profile for practically every game (excluding small indie games of course) to come out since. And I'm not talking about just 1080p 3D, I'm talking 5760x1080 and 3840x720 resolutions. Eyefinity and nVidia Surround is where the magic is, not 1080p. 1920x1080 was so 4 years ago, it's rather pathetic that people get excited over 720p.
While there is nothing wrong with PC gaming, I happen to agree with the people here. There isn't a PC for $300 that would last as a gaming platform. Sure, some of the newer PC games look great, but we're also talking about a $800+ PC system equipped with a high-end video card.
unfortunately we're only just starting to see games take advantage of dx11 tech, and even dx10 tech which has been around for 3 years. i recently upgraded to windows 7, and you see a world of difference in the jump from dx9 to 11 in games like metro 2033 and aliens vs predator. other games use the tech to an extremely minimal extent-- bad company 2, for instance, looks way better than on console but there's only a small difference in lighting when going from dx9 to 11. some games are just slightly enhanced console ports, which is unfortunate. AC2 and mass effect 2 both look fantastic when maxed out, but you can definitely notice sloppy mid-to-distant level of detail in AC2 and muddy textures in the close ups of ME2. this is likely much less noticeable when running the game at a x720 resolution on a TV as opposed to a x1050 or x1080 on PC. developers are afraid to put resources into the tech. they can't be afraid to take risks, like with just cause 2, which is exclusive to dx10 and 11 and makes very good use of the tech. (pick it up on steam folks, it's only $7.50 right now!!) also the pc version of arkham asylum looks PHENOMENAL as well, though i'm pretty sure that's still on dx9. i've never seen a game use physx that well, you get caught off guard by the smallest things, even just a stack of papers falling over. developers really need to start making use of this tech, and not just for the sake of PC gamers-- it's inevitable that tech like tessellation will be in the next round of consoles, and the more practice they get now, the better things will be for everyone down the line. @STGuy1040 as much as i love PC gaming, i agree, and i think that's the point of consoles. it's a relatively cheap dedicated gaming computer that lasts a long time. and from a development standpoint, i imagine it must be easier to squeeze the juice out of one dedicated type of machine instead of having to scale to different possible rigs and account for different combinations of components.
PC destroys the consoles. There's no competition.
Haha at the kids who think ArmA2 doesn't look better than Killzone 3.
I can name 1 game which is better than killzone 3 and uncharted 3 ( even tho those 2 games aint even out yet but anyway...) hello kitty beat any ps3 game out there to date.
PC is the ultimate gaming console. You can build one for $400 w/o an operating system and that totally beats any console hands down. Oh and without PCs being the way that they are, there would be no consoles
Crysis not even close to killzone 3 and uncharted 3, infamous 2, last guardian, Resistance 3, Ratchet and clank All4One, GT5, LittleBigPlanet 2, Star Hawk. u a PC fanboy you dont know the power of the ps3. The only good pc game is battle field, dragon ball online, rockman online.
The PC only has better visuals if your PC is capable of displaying them. Let's not pretend that "PC" is a single hardware platform. It isn't. There are games made for Windows. That's it. The hardware is a massive variable and most peoples' PCs cannot churn out these sorts of graphics. Yes, high end PCs can do better things than consoles, especially when things are mid-gen like they are now. But the differences we see between "good" PCs and consoles today are not even CLOSE to the differences we'd see 10 years ago. The line is far thinner today.
Crysis Warhead, Arma II: Operation Arrowhead, Cryostasis, Witcher 2 , Shattered Horizon.
those games you speak of killzone 3 and uncharted have a way higher budget to make the game, pc devs can do great graphics on small budget and the games don't even stress pc hardware now cause its so ahead of the software most games can be run 120fps on high end rig its crazy ive never seen hardware this far in front of software and the reason its happening cause no big budgets go into pc games there all ports and multi-plats. an argument could be made because consoles are becoming more mainstream games aren't pushing pc hardware as much. btw one game with a small budget and good graphics is Cryostasis which was made by a small russian dev company. and a mid range pc is more powerful than a console now its crazy how good pc hardware is right now cause games are so far behind you can build a system around an hd 5850 for around 500$ right now, which will run anything you throw at it @ a true 1080p or what pc gamers call 1920x1080 or which true pc gamers use 1920x1200 lol. most consoles games don't even run at that rez.
"PC vs. Console: Stunning Visuals That Make Console Gamers Jealous" Without considering the fact that you could easily flip it to "PC vs. Console: Stunning Exclusives That Make PC Gamers Jealous", I'd like to say that if you want the better graphics, you ARE paying for it. A PC that plays games as well as a console WILL cost you more than $300 ("Bu bu but you can buy thriftily" nothing...making the argument that you can buy old and sale-priced parts doesn't change anything seeing as you could buy a console on sale or old or used just the same). There's a reason we always see these articles instead of ones bragging about 5-years or younger of games that you can only play on PC. And it's not because graphics are more important than gameplay.
Gothic 4 looks also looks better, its just a crappy game though.
" I agree, most PC games don't take advantage of the hardware." You do realise the potential that lies within a project that is compiled for a specific CPU and geared towards certain hardware parts( IE motherboar, ram etc etc). It would destroy all games of today in technical aspects. This is not good for developers as you will miss a large group of potential buyers. To have software run on different CPU chips, it needs to run from early CPU models( like Pentium 4...LOL) . Meaning, to make it compatible with newer models, the CPU emulates some instructions. Meaning its not making full use of the CPU. So i've heard. But thats what you get if you want it to be supported by many different CPU's.
"PC vs. Console: Stunning Visuals That Make Console Gamers Jealous" lol at assuming Console Gamers don't play on PC =P + some people prefer the console experience. you want to sh** all over that go ahead, won't stop them enjoying it
PS3+Gaming PC = FTW I could never let go of my PS3 I think PC fanboys are just as bad a the PS3 patrol police... If you're a real gamer you would overlook things like AA and 1080p resolutions for great gameplay like that in Uncharted 2 LBP MGS4 Infamous and God of War 3... If I hadn't played this games and if I had been as stubborn as some of the so called "PC elitists" I would feel like half a gamer.
most pc gamers know that those are decent games but also know those games can run on pc and when devs hold back pc games just to try to sell consoles more i think allot of pc gamers lash back all these games can run on pc at even higher settings if you have the right hardware but even if you don't a lower end rig should be able to run it on lower settings just like every other game.
Next up: PC vs. Console: Brilliant exclusives that make PC gamers jealous. Games vs. graphics, you decide which is more important. Doesn't make you any less of a gamer for picking either, which is why being either a console-only or a PC-only gamer is just personal preference and nothing more.
We don't need a article to know PC is far superior lol PC is a generation ahead of consoles, but all that power is not being utilised yet. Crysis is still the definitive graphical game.
3 generations to be exact
PCs don't have "generations". It's a continual evolution. Without a single standard platform you cannot define "generations". A brand new PC with high end parts is capable of better gfx performance than the consoles, true. But to make the blanket statement that "PCs are far superior" is dishonest at best. Some PCs are better. Some are worse. It's not a single platform.
So, how much do you have to pay for a PC which can run game suppass GOW3, UC3 or KZ3 graphic, at a maximum setting with a decent framerate?
First you need games to be developed that even push said PCs to that point. As of now there are only a sad handful. And ct03, no, $400 will NOT buy a PC that will let you max out everything that category. That will barely cover the CPU (at least $100-$300), motherboard ($100-$150), and display (at least $100). Nevermind the hard drive (at least $80), memory (at least $60), DVD drive ($20 for vanilla, $75 for Blu-Ray), and case ($50 for a decent cheap one). And we haven't even touched on the graphics card yet. That alone will be at least $150 for a decent one. $600 minimum is what it would take to get a decent gaming PC. $800 for one that can max out high-performance games. And that's only if you build your own. Retail, add another $200. PC gaming is NOT cheap. Let's kill that myth before it gets too far.
Actually, the cost of the pc is negligible since everyone already has one in their homes already. Really, the difference between a regular pc and a gaming pc is the graphics card. A $400 graphics card today will make your pc capable of maxing out basically every game at 1080p. Sure, you could go all out with Core i7 processors[yeah, you can have 2 core i7 6 core cpus at the same time], SSDs in RAID 0, and DDR3 Ram, but that isn't needed to max out the games of today. All you need to do is slap a graphics card into your pc and you're ready to go! :)
i think you need to shop alil bit you can build a tower around a 5850 right now with amd x4 for about 500 that would blow circles around a ps3, monitor and acc not included but does a ps3 come with an hdtv.....? for the cost of a ps3 and a good 2d hdtv you can build a sick high end sli rig with a 3d monitor.
@ct03: At $400, you only have enough to buy a graphic card alone, let aside processor, RAM, and all other stuff. @frostypants: $150 graphic card will never be able to beat GOW3 graphic. @Cock4Gamers: But i'm talking about buying a whole PC here, not separate stuffs.
"$800 for one that can max out high-performance games." sorry but compared to Europe thats F'n cheap. for 800 euro(1 050.56 U.S. dollars) you have a casual pc at most. Unless you buy parts after it which will only raise the bar.
Now watch when the rage engine is out and kill zone 3 mods and ut3 mods are made by fans that put the ps3 to shame. It happens all the time yet you guys never see it because of where you get you news at. Brink and rage will be all a play on the pc for a good 4 years so I'm good. On top of this what ps3 game runs over 30 fps? The game play in console shooters still hasn't surpassed splash damages quake wars which I still play. Better yet quake 3. The only game to come close is from japan,,,, Vanquish. No one is pushing tessal and benchmarks are done at 3000+ resolutions now. Then top this off with real detail in textures. 15 fps vs 60 and up is not competing. Find a core any thing and you can run every thing. The best console ports where on pc like sf4 playing just like the arcade fast as hell, none of you saw devil may cry with 24 plus enemies on screen with atmospheric effects that where not on the console. Even the online was better. Choice of controls and even a Wii mote if you had the mod. You guys are just a little in the cheap side and misinformed.
It may be true that pc has better graphics than console games, depending of course what pc you have or what cpu and or graphics cards you may have, but the problem is that since there are so many different pcs with so many different cpus and GFX cards, sound cards, etc it is not as easy to code a game to use the full potential of the pc compared to a ps3 or 360. Ps3 since there is only one ps3 that always has the same chips inside can allow devs to gain expireince on coding and thus produce games with graphics such as god of war 3 or killzone 3. If devs could dedicate themselves to a pc that they can truely create a good game in terms of grfx then perhaps we may see a truely good looking game, take for example Crysis- a truely good looking game and was created ON the PC.
Don't approve this no need to start a fight over something so stupid, and wesley stop causing.
I bought a PS3 for £300 3 years ago, it still plays the latest games problem free, and to the best of its abilities. I doubt a £300 pc 3 years ago could claim to do the same.
An ATI 3870 x2 or an nVidia 8800 ultra can still play pretty much most modern titles no problem at all at pretty good graphical levels, if not better than the PS3 with it's 7800-series based RSX. edit - Mis-read your post, sorry! I didn't read the last bit properly about comparing it against a £300 PC, my bad! :) As for the other bits, it will no doubt push it over the £300. RAM you could spend about £30, motherboard (with integrated sound card) about £50, CPU around £120, DVD £10, HDD £40 and keyboard and mouse say £20 collectively. Does push it pretty far over the £300 mark!
Well there goes £100-150... What will you spend the rest of the £300 on? Let's exclude monitor to make things fair. CPU? RAM? HDD? DVD? Motherboard? Soundcard? Mouse + Keyboard?
Eeeerm I "THINK" you will need a graphics card maybe? Unless you want to use the motherboards integrated GFX card and get 7fps in MW2 on the lowest settings. You will also need a box £20, wires + CPU conductor cream £5 and a PSU £20... so that you can turn the thing on. Keep in mind I am letting you know what it would be like if you built this gaming PC back in 2007. Than unless your a Pirate you will need Windows 7 or Windows XP 3 years ago (which won't let you play a lot of Windows Vista & Windows 7 games which would mean you would have to upgrade your operating system a couple of years down the line even if the hardware is fine) All this things add at list another 100 and I am being generous. @Corrwin £30+50+120+10+40+20 doesn't equal £100-150 seriously go back to school. It adds up to £270 and a decent GFX card would have set you back at list £80 3 years ago. Along with the £100 for all the necessary things that work to switch the PC on yet you forgot it comes to a total of £450... I got a £60 graphics card 2 years ago and my PC was not as good as my PS3 until I gave it another full upgrade last year. Be serious.
Lol you are talking out of your ass... "PC Gaming is cheap!" "until I gave it another full upgrade last year. " Yeah, OK. Well done moron.
PS3 in Aus 3 years ago = $1000 PC Bought 3 years ago = $1129 8800gtx Overclocked = 410 Asus SLI MB = 170 Quad Core 6600 OC = 210 DVD drive = 29 800W PSU + Case = 190 4gb DDR 2 = 120 Keyboard + Mouse = $35 for both Can run almost anything on high-full settings, as well as do my uni work, IMO a much better investment.
"PS3 in Aus 3 years ago = $1000 " wow that sucks =(..ok so this article only really applies to australia then =P
Remind me never to live in Australia. Even back in 2k7, 1k AUD would be about £390-400, which is still over the odds.
Yeah and all your games are £40.
PC is like a 1000 dollar console
Console is like a $300 lunchbox.
...That can play Uncharted 2 and God Of War 3...
Sony can stick their exclusives where the sun don't shine. I'd love to play some of them, but I sure as heck won't buy a console. Want my money? Then do it like Microsoft and release on PS3+PC. I bought games like Mass Effect 1 and 2. LOVED them. But would I have bought a 360 just to play them? Of course not.
I wish I had a PS3 lunchbox... I would be the coolest kid in college. Play God of War 3 and Eat your sandwich at the same time :D
Jealous ? Isnt this the other way around with some pc only fanboys constantly reminding others that pc are more powerful ? Duh ... it's something already and already de facto established , wich is why among debates most people dont care and dwells on it . If people choose consoles its for their set of console only/mostly games , and their confort of use ... hardly anything else
I just don't get the comparison anymore. I have a PS3 because it simply has great games that a pc doesn't have and I also have a pc for great games that consoles don't have. I find it hard to believe that there are people today don't have both consoles and a pc for gaming. This is article is just plain ridiculous. We also have to remember that gaming started on consoles before the pc.
gaming started on a computer......lol and a console is a computer just with limited capabilities and a controlled network.
The funny thing Pjuice, is that people are going to ignore it, when all a console is, is a concentrated PC.
But does it play Uncharted ?
I'm pretty sure it would have if Naughty Dog made it for PC, and it would have looked better.
Pretty lame article. The concept is correct but it's poorly done and obviously pretty fanboyish (coming from a pc gamer primarily here).