Top
930°

Are We Approaching the Graphical Wall? - Gamers Riot

TheDetails always believed that at some point, the laws of diminishing returns would catch up with graphics technology. This would eventuate with real-time rendering hitting a “wall” of sorts, where adding exponential performance would not result in perceivable gains in image quality. This circumstance would lead to a period where real-time graphics would become “good enough”, causing hardware innovation to stagnate while software developers, blessed by a stable hardware feature and performance plateau, would embark on a renaissance of game design....

Read Full Story >>
gamersriot.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Pandamobile2318d ago

There's still tons we can improve on, just not with this generation of consoles.

ATiElite2318d ago

Sorry but they are limited in GPU power and limited in Ram. They struggle to do 720p at 30 fps when Devs really pile on the eye candy and you can forget about AA as that just kills them. Sure many many games look great but lack so many new graphical features that have come out in the past few years.

The Witcher 2 PC is DX9 but it just kills any console game because of the all the eye candy and graphical features that would make a console choke. So yes it's time for new consoles cause at this point Crysis 2 or Uncharted 3 is as good as it's gonna get while Metro 2033 PC signaled the new era of graphical power not too mention Crysis PC 2007 still kills any console game.

and before anybody says "Graphics aren't everything" then I suggest you trade in your console for an Atari 2600. As graphics evolve so does game play.

SkyCrawler2318d ago

Guess we're at our communication limits also. Lord knows we only use the telephone cause we're struggling to find ways of talking to each other any other way.

ATiElite2318d ago

@ SkyCrawler

What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you thought your statement out very well B4 you typed it.

I'm talking about consoles which are CLOSED SYSTEMS that are not going to be upgraded and have reached their limits. Your talking about Communications which is a "category" that telephones, telegram, radio, voice etc. fall under.

Go back to the drawing board and try again...actually DON'T cause you will just embarrass yourself again.

SkyCrawler2318d ago (Edited 2318d ago )

so you did get what I was saying? :D

P.S. don't try so hard to sound like a douche. It makes you look..well douchey.

BrianG2318d ago

There is a flaw with your "Graphics aren't everything" argument.

I like the games I play now better than the games I've played on previous consoles, not just because of the graphics, but because of the story telling evolution's, connection to characters, gameplay mechanic evolution's, etc... etc...

Some of them are aided by graphics of course, like immersion.

So even if graphics aren't everything, I would still want a PS3 in my house, because everything else that makes up the game is available, and frankly better than it was in previous generations.

reynod2317d ago

Lol we have been stagnant for quite afew years when it comes to graphics due to console tech.

Active Reload2317d ago

A graphical wall? I'm not sure, but I do encompass art style into graphics and PC has hit a wall in that respect.

SpartanQ82317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

^^^^^^

SpartanQ82317d ago

ATiElite you're right man>> Big Agree

NukaCola2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

Newer hardware will allow for 120hz 1080p 3D realism, sure but then you have to factor in the devs artistic approach. Graphics =/= Realism. Okami, WindWaker,& Flower are examples of graphical masterpieces. FFXIII is gorgeous as hell but the game is weak sauce. Just my thought. That's why I personally am excited for Last Gaurdian. Art style is what I look for the most in graphics.

RedDead2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

I have to say, no game this gen has dragged me in to the characters like FF(2001 and before) other Square games for that time, Suikoden 2, MGS 3 and 1. Graphics are a bonus to me, sometimes they make you stop to look in awe, but for me they are of lower priority than..everything else(you can mix and match art style or graphics I think , although some games Art just destroys the 'quality' type like Gears and KZ"

So long as a game has decent graphics these days I'll accept it, Cod is fine for me. or atleast it's graphics are good enough for me, it's the gameplay and BS it has about it that I don't like.

longcat2317d ago

I would much rather see some software diversity that prettier graphics.

Another jump will result in another generation of 'safe" gamemaking.

ProjectVulcan2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

The nearest thing to a wall being hit will be the current processes for building semi conductors, which are predicted to stop shrinking by around 2025. New methods of construction or even entirely news ways of computing will be needed at that point to improve on any computing performance.

Just as it has been doing for the past 20 years the game industry will evolve, from sprites/vector to polygons to pixel shading. Rasterization might still be around in some form, while other methods of graphics could begin to become more viable as power increases.

While computer technology still moves forward then i believe we will see developers always hungry for more performance.

However if, and maybe when it stops or slows right down, then developers will be more satisfied with what they have and try to make the best games with the capabilities available to them. Be under no illusions though, that capability will be hundreds of times over and above what is in current consoles....

I believe that the first genuinely photorealistic games will end up racing sims. Capturing the human form or organic movement is far more difficult than capturing a car and a racetrack. GT5's replay mode with all the extra post processing isn't a million miles away now, so imagine what it will be like with one more generation.

HeavenlySnipes2317d ago

isn't the best looking game I've ever seen. Sorry if I disappointed you man....

DeadIIIRed2317d ago

It wasn't a wall it was a guard rail

subtenko2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

Ok so ima pick up UNCHARTED 3 for PC in that case..oh wait... its not on pc..well gee...I wanna play alot of these great Sony PS3 1st party games :/ oooh wait! I'll just use my PS3 and get the game I wanna play!! Games that arent on PC :O

and before you say you would rather have the best graphics period with 2 PC games vs having hundreds of EXTREMELY fun games not on PC, then well...sucks for you!

Graphics are great but I dont just want great graphics, I want both games and graphics. So I got a ps3. I still pc game at times tho

P.S. (the human eye argument), do games look exactly like real life 100% in real time? nope.. games have a lot of work to do still..

lil Titan2317d ago

they still haven't maxed out the PS3 yet so what is this graphical limit im hearing about? exclusive after exclusive PS3 games look better than the last and without upgrading a graphics card or ram. i can only speak for the PS3 when i say its far from over in the graphics department

meetajhu2317d ago

The day we will hit graphical wall is when Santa Monica or Idsoftware optimizes games to run on DirectX 11 on PC!

Spydiggity2317d ago

lol...a "renaissance of game design."

like hell we would. we'd just get a 'new' COD, Madden, and NFS every year.

fatstarr2317d ago

I totally agree with you man

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

not even 5xbox 360s taped together could produce these results ( sorry for the gamecube/wii joke)

but seriously if you took the processing powers of 10 ps3's or 360's i don't think it could do these visuals at that resolution at that frame rate.

50Terabytespersec2317d ago

LOL all I see in this witcher 2 is RAM RAM RAM!!!
Nothing special or complex in terms of Graphics Rendering and Physics or models that are sheer amazing or massive depth of onscreen characters and Ai..
Same BS PC games with RAM RAM bloated 400 dollars GPU.
(better spent on a night out dancing with a human being or friends!)

ChrisW2316d ago

Every time someone brings up this arguement, we all seem to forget about Moore's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

RedSky2316d ago

No, but we have hit the wall of never ending generic FPSs.

RedSky2316d ago (Edited 2316d ago )

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

^ Flick to half way through.

And yeah, Witcher 2 slays everything on consoles on a souped up PC. I have a PS3 and have played Uncharted 2 on it. See clip above on 1080p if you don't believe me. And 1080p youtube streaming pretty heavily blurs it by the way.

Not trying to start a flame war or anything but all I do is walk around a forest and cum starts shooting out of my eyes. It's really that good.

drosera12316d ago

I love my PS3, but this man speaks the truth. I also have a powerful PC, and games optimized for it (like the Witcher 2), blow consoles out the water. I can't believe you got disagrees, there really is no accounting for intelligence.

RedDragan2316d ago

There is an 8THz (8,000GHz) processor that was built in 2008, or maybe 2006, but we still do not see that sort of technology on the market.

It is an optical processor which uses laser light photons, instead of the more conventional 'electrical' electrons. The result means this processor is far more efficient in the cooling department, in fact, it is far cooler than todays readily available Intel, AMD and IBM processors.

This ultra fast processor is not really designed for general purpose processing so it would not be suitable to replace the i7's or Cell's, but it is intensively mathematically based and thus it can easily replace the sort of processors that Graphics Cards use, the motherboard on which is sits is also optical in nature and there in lies the problem with intergrating it with current widely available technology.

We could not get the most out of it because the conversion from optical to eletron and electron to optical means we would not see the full 8THz performance, but I would imagine they are working on an optical General Purpose processor... when they make that then there will be no 'Wall' for another few decades. Capacitors will be a thing of the past and so would fans and other cooling methods, that is, as far as the processors are concerned. Cooling would still be required for memory etc.

The big question is though, why are companies like Intel, nVidia and AMD not using this optical technology in their graphics cards? Although the conversion will be needed because the motherboard will remain electron based, that processor would still deliver better results than the current technology used on Graphic Cards.

Treyb3yond2316d ago

Pc is expensive, unreliable and have few exclusives worth playing.

Pc gaming is nigh on dead. If all pc gamers have to boast about is better lighting and high resolutions, I'd be concerned if I were you.

And this is coming from a Starcraft player.

Kleptic2316d ago

Spydiggity...that is exactly what a 'renaissance of game design' is...when developers stop pushing visuals, and focus more on retelling the same story over and over...i.e. CoD...

Developers as a whole are not overly pushing any hardware...be it consoles or PC...sure a few games here and there break out and move forward, but they make up less than 5% of the games released each year...

look at recent graphical arguments objectively...and what do you get?...a bunch of console gamers more or less perfectly satisfied with what is being released...and a bunch of PC gamers high fiving each other non stop about having some better AA, a higher framerate, and higher resolution...but overall no more geometry, no 'bigger environments'...its the same exact game, just in slightly higher fidelity...

the cost of production on one of those top 5% games is still WAY to high for it to become normal...we are approaching the area of this generation where developers and hardware makers are going to make most of their money...development costs on 'normal' current generation games are less than half of what they were when these consoles showed up...and because PC gaming is absolutely riddled with piracy, and is + always will be the WORST way for developers to make money...no one is overly pushing PC even though its technically ready to render a hell of a lot more than either console...

if people stop fighting about which versions look better...and actually consider everything on the table...we're in a dip technology wise that will last at least a year or 2...2 or maybe 3 games a year will release that truly impress us and absolutely crush everything else available visually...honestly, look at even recent graphical arguments from PC gamers...and any time any recent game looks close across all platforms, they throw Crysis 1 back in the mix and say 'its still visual king'...when did that release, like 2007?...ever wonder why you don't see a game that pushes the bar like Crysis every year?...because its too expensive and not enough people actually buy it...

Lykon2316d ago

It depends if you are getting bored with your generic COD version x.xxxx and think slightly better lighting or environment destructibility will improve the experience....personally I think the graphical abilities of the current gen (ps3,360....i'm not including the wii in this) are very good and just want to see more interesting, enjoyable games using current hardware, rather than experience the big development slowdown we will experience with new hardware. There is always the option of becoming a high end PC hobbiest for those that want to play a couple of multiplats in higher definition, but personally I don't think it's worth all the expense and agro...driver updates, peripherals, compatibility issues with operating systems etc etc etc...just my opinion.

+ Show (27) more repliesLast reply 2316d ago
KRATOS-PS32317d ago

Naughty Dog crushing through that wall with a m1 abrams and sing while driving.

Peaceful_Jelly2316d ago (Edited 2316d ago )

Uncharted is an epic series and ND has done everything in their might to squeeze every drop of performance out of the PS3 through optimizations. But the truth is that Uncharted environments are pretty tight and they lack interaction and other stuff like destructibility. The same thing with the GeoW series and Crysis 2...

The first Crysis and the second are like 2 entirely different games and it was all due to the console's limitations. No more amazing physics, no more open world, no more destructibility, no more advanced AI, no more life-like graphics...

Kleptic2316d ago

^^i totally agree with what you are saying but leave 'advanced AI' out of ANY discussion with Crysis 1...it was complete trash and anyone that played it knows that...being spotted by 8 enemies literally a mile away and opened up on...just for stepping on a stick...is not good AI...or even better...having 3 guys all looking at the ocean; sniping one of them...and having the other two continue to walk over their dead friend and never noticing him...

Crysis may not look 4 years old...but definitely shows its age in other areas...

KRATOS-PS32316d ago

@ the people who disagree: you guys should really play Uncharted 2. No game on consoles has matched it yet visually. Honestly, such a polished game is even hard to find in the PC secion.

Shepherd 2142315d ago

Im sure Uncharted 2 is an awesome game if i had the chance to actually play the whole thing, but i just thought that guy's comment was a bit exaggerated.

Uncharted 2's environments look great, but they have much less interactive elements than BF3's will have, so its whatever you prefer.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2315d ago
theonlylolking2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

I agree. These peeps without powerful gaming PC's see BF3 and think the graphical wall has been hit. If you honestly think the graphical wall has been hit then you are dumb.

Crysis, a 2007 game has about the same graphics as BF3 and metro 2033 a 2009 game has about the same as BF3.

Awesome crysis mod footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

stu8882317d ago

fair play that crysis mod looks insane!

SantistaUSA2317d ago

Awesome Crysis mod! I havent played Crysis in a while and that just made me want to get back to it! :)

peowpeow2316d ago

Extreme Immersion mod exaggerates movements too much, but that looks beautiful

Sarcasm2316d ago (Edited 2316d ago )

Uhh that crysis video gave me a headache. Perhaps if they toned down the over exaggerated movement just a notch, it would look better. And the extreme amount of motion blur looks ridiculous. Otherwise it looks pretty good for a mod though.

I honestly don't know what people are expecting in graphics anymore. All I know is that games like Uncharted have crafted story telling that is more exciting than watching a movie in which the graphics only compliment the game itself which is what we all should demand in our video games.

That's the main issue with PC games for me, is that developers aren't creative when it comes to PC game design. They just expect high res textures and resolution to do the trick, but aren't focused on what really matters.

Games like BF3 and Crysis are one in a few that actually showcase PC potential. It's sad, but I've finally joined the ranks of believing that consoles do hold back the true potential of PC gaming. However, to defend PC gaming again, it still boils down to the developers.

What a vicious cycle.

Kleptic2316d ago (Edited 2316d ago )

if you are saying the graphical wall of game development has been hit in a sense that developers 'can't' make a better looking game...you missed the point of this entire article...or probably didn't even read it...

the writer is not saying the current games can't be topped...he is saying we're possibly in spot of this generation where its simply not worth it to push rendering technology significantly further than where it currently is...and I would agree with him...

you mention Crysis...which proves that the industry agrees with him too...the 4 year old Crysis arguably hasn't been topped yet because there isn't any room for it...the cost of actually topping it is far higher than what they would see in sales...they couldn't top it on consoles, so right there is 85% of the possible revenue for a game of that fidelity...and if its PC only the same thing would happen...a million or so in actual sales, and multiple millions pirated, stolen, leaked, torrented, whatever...

so whether PC gamers admit it or not...they are at the consoles mercy...its been that way this entire generation...as soon as ~all the consoles were online enabled, that is where the money train starts and ends...returns on the best PC only games are still under a mediocre console game for almost every genre save RTS games...even MMO's aren't as safe as they were 3 years ago...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2316d ago
TruthSeeker2317d ago

Did any of you read the article? Hes saying that eventually graphics wont be able to be advanced any more because the human eye can only precieve so much. We can make as many improvements as we want but eventually it wont matter.

RedDragan2316d ago

No, he said that there will be a time where to increase detail it will require amazing huge improvements in the next level of hardware. He was talking about, and actually stated, 'diminishing returns'.

Think of it like this by using Moore's Law for computer hardware and we will start with year 1996 and each 1.5 years is the improvement on the previous point:

Jan 1996 - starting point
July 1997 - 100% imporovement on Jan 1996
Jan 1999 - 100% improvement on July 1997
July 2000 - 100% improvement on Jan 1999
Jan 2002 - 100% improvement on July 2000
July 2003 - 98% improvement on Jan 2002
Jan 2005 - 97% improvement on July 2003
July 2006 - 94% improvement on Jan 2005
Jan 2008 - 92% improvement on July 2006
July 2009 - 90% improvement on Jan 2008
Jan 2011 - 88% improvement on July 2009
July 2012 - 85% improvement on Jan 2011
Jan 2014 - 71% improvement on July 2012
July 2015 - 56% improvement on Jan 2014
Jan 2017 - 23% improvement on July 2015
July 2018 - 6% improvement on Jan 2017

Now this is just an example that does not correlate to graphics levels on any platform we have seen today. We might as well change the date to start from the year 2050 if we wanted to. But that is what 'dimishing return' means. So although the hardware continues to become twice as powerful every 18 months as said by Moore's Law, the improvement in graphics in games start off slowly getting less of an improvement and then sharply drops off.

The reason for this is breaching the barrier from make belief to reality is a tuly massive undertaking. We can get fairly close to it as shown with some of the Crysis mods, but to push the bar to what looks like actually reality, although close.... is realistically still very far away.

That final push will likely require several generations of consoles, so we get far in the first 9 or 10 generations, but it will take another 6 or 7 generations to make that last final push.

Now here is a CGI example of close to realism....

That 2005 Motorstorm CGI trailer. That is close to reality but we can tell it is not, if that was a realtime game it would probably be 9th or 10th generation.... PS5 or PS6.

To make that apparently small leap to real life graphics, we are looking at PS15 or PS16. More apparent progress is made between PS1 and PS3 than PS6 to PS15.

The reason... 'Uncanny Valley'. Wiki it for basic but informative explanation.

I remember having to study all this, they were talking about it in academic back in 1999. But I am not a good explainer sorry. :)

nopunctuation2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

There is no graphical wall; once games look photo realistic they will continue to look better than that.

snipes1012317d ago

I bloody hope so. Then maybe we can start talking about games again instead of what resolution the next shooter runs at or screaming about which console is better just because its specs are a tiny bit better.

50Terabytespersec2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

All of these so- called graphics expert/whiners posters should WTFU!!!
Demand we get consoles with Expandable RAM NOW(Shisht! the Sega Saturn did!! and look at the Arcade fighters on this beast!!) perfect compared to its 1000 dollar Arcade counterparts!!

Then you have Games like Wipeout HD or GT5 prologue and Motorstorm Apocalypse!
Play these games on a 37" 1080p that is High End! not cheap, but a Samsung Sony LG, etc you will realize that we just barely started this GEN!!!

Sadly you will notice trade offs when games are pushed this Far!!(sighs gt5 =( more cars =blur,sprites,etc. )
The sad fact is RAM holds PS3 back! and what is the main problem is tiny bit of RAM (OS eats a lot of it)
Bottom line We need expandable RAM !!!
You want graphics, physics ,more polygons, more textures more models, more stuff in the air, more onscreen crap, more deep realistic animation ,colors and stages that go forever!!!and grass every, where trees that fall to pieces , bodies that lay around, and animals and people interacting,blimps in sky , or gorgeous backdrops with Photo HD backdrops???
let me see ??
That would require bluray storage (CHECK!)!! But now you need to get that stuff onto some what comparable amount of local Dynamic RAM (say 2-4GB!!! to feed the SPU's/ Cell and GPU that requires comparable FAST FAST F'ing XDRAM (this stuff is not Cheap) so what we get is puny 256MB!!!!WTF just happened!!!!
Bluray sits their chugging away streaming(god pathetic)
and
So what happens is CELL starves from not having enough Ram because of simple BS bottle neck meaning cutting COST!!!!!!
spend millions on Cell but go cheap on RAM!!!, this is BS!!!
PC owners are lucky they can spend as much as they can afford!!!!
I see this simply as marketing and very well planned strategy of console makers to always keep life cycles the way they are and pollute the earth with left over consoles as well !!!

I am close to giving up on Consoles if i see less than 2GB of Vram on next Gen or better be some SSD or some sort of Expandable RAM
!!demand some change!!!
Give us more RAM!!!
Sony MS, Nintendo !!!!!!

LETS BE HONEST when we talk about Graphics!!
native 1080p is the Pinnacle!!! of photo realism plus Texture Resolutions !!!
Then you have massive polygon Models, then AI,and insane physics animation, weather,lighting all this crap..

1 game that pissed me off that looked promising but failed because of RAM limitations and that is GT5 Prologue to GT5 ...my eyes hurt from that garbage GT5!!
I see Polygons crowd turn to Sprites and sharp HD become Blurry and a dead lifeless Backdrop!!
This game took 6+ years and it hit the RAM ceiling in it first full offering GT5!!
This turned me off of consoles and made me very leary of next GEN!PS4 etc!

Gran Touring2316d ago

16 cars per track, dynamic weather and lighting, wind and smoke effects... it took its toll.

But I fully agree with you

fullmetal2972316d ago

Just a quick note but real life have terrible graphics.

Pl4sm42316d ago

i wanna see all ur faces when the ps4 comes out and it would be twice as powerful as your current ''gaming'' pcs .... then u would say .... dawn ... freaking Sony selling future gaming rigs for $400 , and its more powerful than my $1000 gaming pc D: ...LOL

Si-Fly2316d ago

What a stupid statement, when the PS3 released it was already outdated in comparison to the high spec PCs available at that time. Consoles will always be less powerful than PCs which is fine as you get a lot of bang for your buck from a console. There's no point hoping that a PS4 will be more powerful than the PCs available when that launches, never gonna happen mate.

gman_moose2316d ago

Articles like this are refreshing... much better than the crap that is usually approved on this site.

I agree with it- there's not a whole lot left to accomplish visually for console games. I think next gen they can focus on improving what they are already good at. Number one focus would be improving frame rate. There is no excuse to EVER EVER have a game running sub-30FPS next gen. Then they can work on textures, Anti-ailasing, etc. Basic stuff that they did well this gen, but not great. Of course, next gen games should all be 1080p as well. So to recap:

-1080p
-FPS 30+ always, but target 60+ consistently
-higher res textures
-perfect AA

If they do these things, we will see games exactly as we've been wanting them to be since the PS2 came out and showed us what is possible.

frostypants2316d ago

Wake me when we have mainstream hardware that can render real-time ray-tracing at 1080p+ at 60fps, all with no compromises made against other assets.

We're not even close.

thedetails2316d ago

Ray tracing? I would direct you to this ancient article on the subject:
http://www.beyond3d.com/con...

RT does have advantages, but modern rasterizers have developed workarounds for many of their shortcomings. The same hasn't been done for ray tracing.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2315d ago
milohighclub2317d ago

For me its not about a need for new graphics, more a curiosity and excitement to experience more advanced technology and more atmosphere in games.

Chitown712912317d ago

This is gettin ridiculous.....PC gamers get these super graphical games every what? 3-4 years now? And then talk down to console gamers like their above us? C'mon now dude......ok....Battlefield 3 does look nice.....but how often does that nice lookin game come around? You mean to tell me you spent 1-2k on a computer to play 1 good looking game? Meanwhile, consoles set limitations, which means the developers have no choice but to try to squeeze everything the machine has out of it, which in turn , gives consoles good looking games year round. Might not be the best....but for a five year old console, Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3 are freaking amazing!! Please guys....lets all just game. All of this arguing sh*t is getting annoying

BeastlyRig2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

I would play BF3 a medium settings even if Ps3 could run bf3 at high settings! I luvs my K/M & my 64 players!!

Here is another 64 player shooter coming ww2!

- http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Arma3
- http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Mtero 2033 looked way better on pc..
- http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Best looking rpg af all time
- http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Chitown712912317d ago

I understand having preference.....but bashing and constantly saying which one is better, is really getting annoying on this site.

Chitown712912317d ago

Also is it running in 3D on your PC? .............I'll wait.....

SuicideShaun2317d ago

Crysis: 2007
Metro 2033: 2009
Crysis 2: 2011
The witcher 2: 2011

Not 3-4 years, and those are just the high end, every game still looks better with open settings. And that is why we spend 2 grand. Because we are enthusiasts and we strive for perfection, stop trying to put us down because you have no better argument than to say we spend too much money.

stu8882317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

so thats a decent PC game every year, for 2 grand as you say. Correct me if im wrong buts thats pointless. I'll stick with a decent game every month thanks.

fair play - those ARMASSAULT 3 gfx did look bloody good tho.

Chitown712912317d ago

@Suicide: Thanks for proving my point dude lol

f7897902317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

*sigh*

AGAIN, I will say that it does not take $1000 for a gaming computer. $600 will buy you everything if by chance you didn't own a computer (you do). $250 for RAM, motherboard, and graphics along with parts you own (case and drives) and you have a gaming computer that will play BF3 on high. newegg.com

For anyone that has bought a desktop recently, most likely all you need is to buy a $100 graphics card and you will be able to play everything.

I'm still rocking on an original dual core processor with a HD3870 and games run fine. Maybe only on medium high, but that's okay.

SuicideShaun2317d ago

I didn't prove any point, those are just the high end games. Every multiplat is better too. So your argument is invalid. Pc's are not just for gaming, some of us actually do more then just play around all day.

ECM0NEY2317d ago (Edited 2317d ago )

@Chitown

Im dropping 2k on a computer just for Battlefield 3. If u have played BF2 on PC you would understand. Also if your a true gamer price is no object.

Chitown712912316d ago

Lol again.... I am a true gamer. Which is why I don't talk bad about no consoles. Each one has it's strength....... I was simply stating the fact that pc gamers are acting all high and mighty for no reason. Cuz the fact of the matter is , you don't get these Battlefield 3 like games every other month........ I was saying just chill out. If you can afford to constantly update your graphics card, by all means do so. It's your preference, I understand

frostypants2316d ago

No, I HIGHLY doubt a $100 graphics card will run BF3 on high. In fact I guarantee it won't. The sweet spot just to run new games on medium-high has always been $150. To max new stuff out you generally need to drop over $200.

Unless you run sub-1080 (which means not maxed out).