Battlefield 3 Dev: PC 'Five Or Six Years Ahead Of Consoles'

Battlefield 3 producer Patrick Liu says he hasn't been surprised by the level of scrutiny from gamers comparing the PC version of the game to console versions, adding that the PC platform is "five or six years ahead of consoles now."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Hufandpuf2244d ago

"I sense a fanboy war abrewin'"

fluffydelusions2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

I'm still perfectly happy with my 5 or 6 year old console graphics. And regardless of whether how far ahead PC is it still won't get Sony or 360 exclusive games. No Uncharted, gears, halo, forza, gran turismo, dark souls, rdr etc thanks, I'm fine with consoles.

Winter47th2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

Time for DICE to stop talking now. Every time they try to make a statement they lose more fans.

No one cares that PCs are more advanced than consoles, they're more boring than them. You want an extra few pixels and "wetter" textures, good for you, but stop bashing consoles just for the sake of pleasing a few morons that'll end up Torrenting your game.

Iroquois_Pliskin2244d ago


Autodidactdystopia2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )


You don't "Have" to read what they said.

just don't click on the link.

Plus it is "Their" game to talk about seeing as how they've dumped millions into it.

Maybe they're tired of you whining over and over.

radphil2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

"No one cares that PCs are more advanced than consoles, they're more boring than them. You want an extra few pixels and "wetter" textures, good for you, but stop bashing consoles just for the sake of pleasing a few morons that'll end up Torrenting your game."

God at the irony of this.
You see more and more people complaining about why X game doesn't look better on a said console, and then demonize the devs on this site.

Either it's one or the other. Pick one.
It's funny cause on this site alone, you see a heavy bias. If it's someone talking about PC, people downrate it. If it's someone talking about an "enemy" console, they downrate it.

WarStar2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

you know its not just about Graphic here
See BF3 on pc have alot of features like bigger maps and more 64 players and dont talk about the exlusives that you dont buy
its really annoying to hear this exlusives fanboys talk about it and prefer CoD than R3

DwightOwen2244d ago


You talk as if people are only allowed to own one platform. Just because you're poor doesn't mean the rest of us are. I suppose it never occured to you we PC gamers also have consoles so that we can play the exclusives you mentioned. For multi-plat titles, we get the superior version. PC gamers get the best of both worlds! No matter what, we get to play the best version of the game.

reynod2244d ago


Would you be happy with a 5-6year old cell phone? Cause limiting yourself to old console tech is just about the same.

PC has plenty of its own Exclusives. I dont see why console gamers on this site make such a deal out of exclusives? just because a game is exclusive all of a sudden it has 10/10 status in the eyes of that community fanboism takes over and short comings of the game are instantly over looked. All those genres you mentioned are already covered very well on the PC. Also its not like you arent allowed to own a console while owning a PC.

Boody-Bandit2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

Call me crazy but I have a PC capable of running BF3 on it's highest settings and I'm still getting it for the consoles. Most of my gaming friends don't own PC's.

I really wish developers and publishers would do less talking and more actual progressive work on their products. They are getting as bad as fanboys and trolls.

Kurylo3d2244d ago

are u saying this dev didnt do more progressive work? I mean look at how good this game looks and the technology behind it. Im sorry that that isnt possible on your current console.

Also are you saying devs arent doing progressive work? Crytek with crysis and cryengine 3, ID with rage and their tech 5 engine, battlefield 3?

Im sorry but i dont know what your idea is of progressive. I see it as technology improving.

JaredH2243d ago

Yep I would rather have money to spend on games for consoles then spend it on a $1000+ PC and have less money for actual games. Graphics may be years ahead and same with fps but the gameplay's still practically the same.

Xalaris2243d ago

"PC is five or six years ahead of consoles"

Xbox 360 = 2005
PS3 = 2006
PC's = 2011

2011 - 2006 = 5
2011 - 2005 = 6

Holy shit, the author is a witch.

Solidus187-SCMilk2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

its true that the distance between PC and console is far more than the distance between any game on 360/ps3. People here get mad when you mention the PCs advantages, but argue about the most trivial differences between consoles.

But I always like to play on consoles and PC. I wish my PC wasn't so old now as there are games Ive played on console that I would play on PC instead, and I could have played PC only games like Starcraft 2 and the witcher already. I will get a new PC around when Diablo 3 comes out.

But there are alot of PS3/360 exclusives that are not on PC, but another one would be games that are on PS3/360 and are not on PC.

There are reasons to play on all platforms.

The other day I was at my friends house watching hockey and a MW3 ad showed on TV. One of the people said "wow that looks alot better than Black ops." And I said, Because that is the PC version most likely.

I think Dice wants casuals to understand that what is on the commercial will not be what they are gonna get.

Perjoss2243d ago

Its true that a PC game can be light years ahead when its developed with the PC as the main platform (would be nice if this happened more often) but I really think that the consoles are doing so well to keep up considering the hardware disadvantage.

RumbleFish2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

@fluffydelusions: I was a console only gamer and thought the same way as you. Now I have a very powerful PC and now that I've seen what PCs are capable of, I find it waste of resources, talent and creativity that some of those games you mentioned don't come out on the best platform. It's just such a waste and it's a shame!
After 2 weeks with my PC I wanted to go back and see what I think about the games I admired the most before I had a PC. Only Killzone 3 and GT5 were left. Even Uncharted 2 looks like utter sh!t compared to low settings on good games on PC.
This console gen made console gaming stronger and I definitely would say that console gaming has it's pros and certainly will ever have, but now is the time to move on. This hardware is getting old now.

kaveti66162243d ago

The fact that PC won't get PS3 and Xbox 360 exclusives is not the fault of PC, but rather the egotism of console makers.

You praise Sony and Microsoft for having exclusives when you should be criticizing them for it.

And let's not get started on the stupidity of the console business model. They put themselves in the red and then hope to profit on software. How idiotic. They should just have their games developed for PC and distributed through STEAM. Less risk, more reward.

RedSky2243d ago

This place is like a test study for cognitive dissonance.

Arnon2243d ago

Yes it will. Prepare your body for emulators.

morganfell2243d ago

I am rather troubled by the statement made by Dice. It demonstrates a narrowness of vision and that should worry any gamer that loves gaming more than rooting for their favorite platform.

If graphics were all that mattered then you could take any PC game that was renowned for graphics (Crysis) and bet that it would constitute at least 25% of the games being played at any one time worldwide. But we all know that is not the case.

Arguing which platform has the best graphics is one thing. Arguing which platform has the best games (from a game play perspective) is another matter entirely and one to which graphics whores are oblivious.

There have been a rare handful of games where graphics were so tied to game play that fidelity mattered more than in other, standard titles. The first Splinter Cell is a classic example of this blend.

And while it must be acknowledged that graphics promote immersion and can be directly tied to suspension of the player, at the end of the day the most innovative games have very little of their credit in forward thinking play tied directly to graphics.

Next generation game play doesn't require next generation hardware. It can assist in many ways but the fact is next generation game play requires more than anything else, next generation imagination.

The Eve Online and the Dust 514 collaboration is an excellent example of such innovation. And notice it is about drawing platforms together rather than, as EA is doing in this case, attempting to separate them.

If MS open up their development atmosphere as Valve requested there is a myriad of possibilities.

Sony dropped the ball in interaction between the PS3 and PSP. Nintendo has also fumbled in a similar vein. Has the PC actually fared better? No. In fact, despite superior hardware, the PC has done far less than have consoles in their attempt to expand the way we see games.

Here comes the remark were I am attacked for trolling. Console gamers in general tend to be less narrow minded when it comes to considering the PC as a viable platform versus the reverse examination by PC gamers looking at consoles.

As Mark Twain stated, "Facts are stubborn things"

It was not the PC that managed to bring games out of the bedroom of the recluse and into the mainstream where it has become a respected entertainment industry. Nor would the Frostbite 2 engine have evolved on a budget generated from PC gaming alone. Money drives this industry in most instances.

I do not wish to make this, as EA has done, a discussion of one platform versus the other when some of the best future possibilities for gaming lie in the interaction of consoles and PCs.

However as we can already see on this board there has been an undeniable and indefensible attempt to make the case simply that. If you were to look at the average article where there are consoles and PCs referenced together, one group attacks the other 90% of the time and it is always the same group that demonstrates a lack of tolerance, understanding, or acceptance of the other.

'More players' is not innovation in game play. 'More guns' in the game is not imagination at work. Every time someone relies on that fallback for proof positive of platform superiority all I can think of is Arnold saying, "In dis movie we kill twice as many people. It's fantaaaastic." yes, those were always better movies, right?

Until potent companies such as EA learn the difference between hardware advancement and game play innovation we will never be treated to that true next generation of gaming regardless of the platform for which a title is designed.

evrfighter2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

"If graphics were all that mattered then you could take any PC game that was renowned for graphics (Crysis) and bet that it would constitute at least 25% of the games being played at any one time worldwide. But we all know that is not the case. "

I stopped there fell. If graphics didn't matter as much as you say. then please tell me lens of truth comparisons between ps3 and 360 get less than 100 degrees and less than 10 comments. Please tell me nobody ever starts a fanboy war inside those articles pointing and laughing at the other side because their camp's version has better graphics.

you're so close to being the Morganfell you used to be but you've long since been blinded by fanboyism for the Sony camp.

Wanna know the truth Morganfell? The truth is 360 and ps3 gamers care about graphics despite what you say. The Battlefield 3 lens of truth article is going to rake up 200+ comments and 1000 degrees. We both know it. Because graphics still matter to you console gamers even being 5 or 6 years behind the pc.

AKS2243d ago

I built a gaming PC that falls in the "enthusiast" category in most respects, but I still spend lots of time on my PS3. In fact, I've only played Dark Souls recently.

I pre-ordered BF3 for both PC and PS3. The substantial technical differences aren't going to stop me from enjoying playing it with my PSN friends.

Regarding the hardware specifically, there IS a 6 year difference. Technology advances quickly. Is that such an issue? Dark Souls will probably be my GotY running on 6-year-old hardware. I enjoy high end graphics on my PC, but a good game is a good game, from Gameboy to a high end PC.

TreMillz2243d ago

honestly...idk why devs praise PCs so much. Yea they have limitless power, but they also bring in the least revenue. If I were a dev i wouldn't waste my time making it EXTRA SPECIAL when i know the version that isn't is going to sell more. Just make them balance all across. From experience..64 players is not fun. It makes you like your not even helping the team out. Thats why Insomniac removed it, Mag...well they need to try harder, great game, but needs to make the player feel more involved in those 256 player matches.

Anon19742243d ago

Not that PC's being ahead matters one lick. Look at what's being played these days. The Wii didn't even support HD and we know how that turned out. The money being made today is on farmville and angry birds. If graphics are all that matters, explain that too me.

I was at a game developer conference this spring and I've gotta say, the arrogance of some of these developers is incredible. They just scoff at Facebook games, they turn their noses up at indies and they roll their eyes at the very notion of free to play.

While there might be a market for the best looking games imaginable - it's certainly a small market compared to how the majority of players get their game on. You can boast about the graphics on the PC all you want, no one will be playing your game in 2 years. Meanwhile, millions will still be playing Tetris regularly after we're all dead and gone.

BongSmack2243d ago

Not one word of that article could be considered bashing consoles.

BongSmack2243d ago

You should be able to get a powerful PC that meets BF3's recommended system requirements for $800. (So you'd be able to play any games at high settings for the foreseeable future). Also if you buy, say 1 game a month, you'll save roughly $120 a year on games since console games generally cost $10 more than their PC counterparts.

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 2243d ago
bayport2244d ago

"PC's 5 to 6 years ahead of consoles"

Xbox Came out in 05
PS3 in 06

It's 2011...

I'd say that's obviously accurate....At least if its a modern PC

gamer2342243d ago

some one should pls show dice u3

Persistantthug2243d ago

Where are these games that CANNOT be done on consoles?

Diablo 3? Nope.

Crysis 1? Nope

Witcher 2? Nope

Even BF3's single player looks great on consoles.

I'm really tired of hearing this crap.

bozebo2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

many mmos have a technological scope that isn't possible on consoles

awi59512243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

Be quite NOOB go to http://store.steampowered.c... and see how many games PC has that consoles have never heard of.

starchild2243d ago

You can always run any game on another weaker platform, it's just a matter of what you have to downgrade.

Uncharted 3 could be done on the 360, Gears 3 could be done on the PS3. It's just a matter of what subtle things would have to be changed.

In the case of the PC and the consoles. You can run PC-focused games on the consoles with reduced settings. That doesn't mean that the PCs are not much more powerful than the consoles.

BongSmack2243d ago

The reason there aren't games that can't be ported to consoles is because that would be an unwise move for any company to make since the PC is a much smaller community than the consoles. if Crysis had come out on the consoles right away they would have probably sold 3 or 4 times as much as they did for the PC alone.
Also the reason there aren't more games with vastly better graphics is because the consoles have reached their graphical peak.

Oh and Battlefield 3 may look great on consoles, but not when you compare it to the PC version.

Persistantthug2243d ago

If you answer, please keep in mind that there are several MMO's on consoles today, probably some you haven't even heard of, such as several Japanese ones.

But please....which MMOs, bozebo.

bozebo2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

Any mmo that can have a large amount of players in one area.

The consoles simply don't have enough RAM to keep up the graphical quality that console gamers expect while also providing a greatly expansive environment.

Dalaran in WoW would have totally destroyed any console, i.e. it would simply have crashed. Sure, if you put the graphics down to minimum then it would probably be fine - but console games don't let you adjust the graphics and they won't set the default to something low enough to support that kind of graphical load at 30fps (on consoles, the game would probably look worse than minecraft).

Oh and speaking of which, minecraft won't run on consoles without a lot of downsizing. I believe there is a 360 version being made but they will be tweaking it forever to get it to exist in just 512MB of RAM - it uses procedurally generated voxel environments, something that consoles can't do without severely limiting the gameplay.

Graphically, it is possible to scale any game down. But the shallow market place on consoles demands graphics which the platforms can't actually produce without being detrimental to the gameplay. The CPUs in consoles are good enough, but the RAM limitation in consoles is what limits the actual scope of any games that are to run on the platform. BF3 being a prime example of this (larger player count, some more maps), and that huge map that was only on PC in BC2. RAM limitations are also hampering efforts to produce smarter AI.

I'd like to see a console try to run Mount & Blade lol. Hundreds of fully AI controlled soldiers with physics based hitboxes from medieval weapons, it regularly uses over 2GB of RAM.

mmos often require specific networking conditions that would go against MS's xbl agreement - they can't use more than a certain amount of bandwidth because MS have declared minimum speeds for users' connections that no game can use more than; based on connection speeds in 2003. This probably wouldn't be a problem for the PS3 because Sony are much more open with what they allow developers to do.

Some mmos can be as large as 30 GB (gargantuan explorable worlds). Every 360 game must be able to run off just the DVD. Wouldn't be a problem for PS3 though.

Also, what's an HD console? Wii-u isn't out yet.

Persistantthug2242d ago

1. Sony allows MMO's to be run on the PS3.

2. PS3's all have harddrives. That's one of the ways developers get by with the 512MB of ram, by leveraging the HD for VIRTUAL RAM. The other(s) are disk streaming and higher CPU use.

3. WoW would run just fine one 1 or perhaps both HD consoles. How do I know? Because I used to play WoW for a year on my Single core 1GB computer that I'm typing on right now.

As I mentioned, there are several MMORPG's on the PS3 right now...Free Realms, DC Universe, Uncharted Waters, Angel Online, and a couple others, and some on their way.

Bottom line, there is not a single game in existence that, if optimized and programed for, can't be run on 1 or Both HD consoles. I'm waiting for this said, game, but it doesn't yet exist....That includes all MMOS.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2242d ago
TheGameFoxJTV2243d ago

When will these kids realize that it's not DICE doing this but the writer of these articles. They will take a single sentence that out of context sounds like flamebait and use it to get hits. And you guys fall for it every single time. lol

MikEyG2243d ago

I know right just look at them side by side there's hardly a difference other than 60fps and bigger multiplayer

specialguest2243d ago

Whenever an article is posted with a developers quote taken out of context being used as part of the title, you always get a lot of misdirected hate towards the developer. In actuality, it was just a direct answer to a question being asked.

These developers are not purposely making these statements as a public announcement to piss off gamers. Yet, time and time again, these N4Gamers fall into the articles bait and trap.

TheGameFoxJTV2243d ago

This is a common trick that people fall for even in the regular media. This is the kind of stuff Fox pulls off all the time to trick the less attentive.

pharmd2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

what a fu*kin dummy

no shit consoles are 5-6 years behind, they've been out for 5-6 f'n years, whereas PCs are constantly upgraded and can be manipulated and modded piecemeal

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2242d ago
FlameHawk2244d ago

I kind of find it stupid since the consoles (PS3 & X360) have been out for 6 years so of course there going to be behind.

caboose322244d ago

Yea that's exactly what I was thinking.

Kind of a pointless article, unless you don't know how to count time.

ChickeyCantor2244d ago

ehhh....PC's are always ahead. No matter the 6 years.

Dasteru2243d ago

@rezzah, How is it wrong? the 360 has 512mb each of ram and video memory. when it released back in 05 a top end gaming pc was already sporting 8gb of ram and up to 3.7gb of video memory in quad sli.

Laxman2243d ago

Actually looking at the games that are released on console today, like Uncharated 3, Arkham City, Gears of War 3, Battlefield 3, Rage etc, and then looking at the games that were released on PC at the time of the consoles releases, and its easy to see, consoles are quite far ahead of PC's of the same time. PC's are more powerful now, yes, no one doubts that, but the only fair way to judge which is actually more powerful is to use a 6 year old computer... That would shut up you PC fanboys.

bozebo2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

"up to 3.7gb of video memory in quad sli"
no thats not how it works, the video memory doesn't add when you add more cards... but anyway yeah.

The current gen consoles were ahead of affordable gaming PCs (something less than $1000) for about a year.

The next generation will be interesting though...
A fairly good gaming PC can be built today for about $800 (maxing almost every game at 1080p with frame rates well above 30, mostly above 60).

For consoles to compete with that price (something like at $300 launch) they will have to be worse than a PC today - and they probably wont appear till 2014.

"consoles are quite far ahead of PC's of the same time"
I was playing Oblivion when it launched with frame rates above 30 and graphics settings close to maxed out (probably had AA down at 2x). Not only that, but I was playing at a resolution of 1600x900 - well above the console's resolution. And that was on a PC I bought about a week before the 360 launched.

Quite recently, I tried the Hard Reset demo on it (a new game from a small developer that looks better than any console game ever released), after noticing that my puny laptop maxed it out without any issues and I got curious. The rig nearly maxed it out (I turned AA down to MLAA, which as it happens is common way for consoles to manage AA without annihilating the fps) at 1680x1050 without the frame rate dropping below 30. That is what happens when a developer bothers optimising for old PCs.

ProjectVulcan2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

Yup, consoles have never been ahead, although a PC to beat 360 when it launched in 2005 was not very cheap. An athon X2 and X1800 is really faster than 360 and PS3. Oblivion was considered to be the most demanding game of the time, and a single X1800 had no trouble at all beating out 360 on it, nor on COD2, or Prey, or Quake 4 etc all 360 games of the time.

360 ran oblivion 1024 x 600 and 2 x AA, and it still did not run the max settings of the PC version.

Here we see crossfire X1800XT managing nearly 50 frames a second 4 x AA 1600 x 1200. This is actually THREE time the resolution 360 did.

Of course if you really wanted to splash out you could have paired up to crossfire X1800- This setup could manage Oblivion 1600 x 1200 with 4 x AA and everything turned on very comfortably. Neither console could compete with that!

This wasn't a cheap machine, but it WAS faster. The console when it launched was cheaper, but this is only because Microsoft followed sony's model of losing on every console sold initially.

Within 6 months however the price of parts that made a PC faster had fallen a lot, and after a year a totally new GPU generation had appeared that completely outstripped both consoles.

kcuthbertson2243d ago



Go play BF3, Arkham Asylum, or Rage on a good PC and tell me that the consoles do a better job...

That's not power, it's optimization.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2243d ago
Organization XII2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

Nowgamer is playing Captain Obvious with that title

zero_cool2243d ago

360 came out 2005 PS3 came out 2006 get your information correct before you post it thank you!

boommuffin2243d ago

technicaly isnt his info correct since he said 5-6 years ahead of consoles & its been 5 & 6 years since the 360 & PS3 launched? O.o

aksmashh2243d ago

Isn't that always the case you get what you pay for?

I paided £350 about 4 years ago but if i paid that same now on tech..........

Rageanitus2243d ago

yah but man console only fanboys still believe it is expensive to get a pc gaming rig.

Its not obvious for alot of console only players...

for instance many believe that the game is 1080p native just because it says so on the back of the box

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2243d ago
Kamikaze1352244d ago

Not to be a fanboy, but consoles will always be behind.

TheGameFoxJTV2243d ago

Wonder how many people realize that the people who make the GFX card and such in their 360, PS3s, and Wii are the same guys who make the PC versions?

Kamikaze1352243d ago

That should be obvious, but this article doesn't have to do with name brand. It has to do with the technical leap in regards to raw power and what a system is capable of. Also, good graphics also require a processor, which is also made by the same people who make PC processors =P

TheGameFoxJTV2243d ago

I know, I was just stating that it's obvious that a card the same company made 6 years ago can't perform on or near the same level as one made today, or even 3 years ago. It's just common sense.

Ghost_of_Tsushima2244d ago

Yea that far behind and also while you keep spending money to keep it 5 or 6 years ahead.

kramun2244d ago

It doesn't take much money at all really, I've spent less than £200 in the last 5 years to keep my pc fairly up to date and way ahead of my consoles.

It's not cutting edge, but it's very capable.

raytraceme2244d ago (Edited 2244d ago )

funny cause A lot of my friends "Upgraded" their original xbox to the slim. Hell I even know some people who went from the original to the elite to the slim.

TheEatingVodka2243d ago

Dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life..
Your friends upgraded their console cause they wanted to, not cause they had to..
Your point sucks and so do you

bozebo2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

I 'upgraded' mine because of RRoD and the too-short-but-still-extended-w arrantee which had run out when mine finally decided to die.

So overall I spent about £600 on 2 xbox 360 consoles + however much it cost to have an XBL gold account from april 2006 till 3 months ago. (also had xbl on original xbox but I didn't know I was being ripped off back then so I won't count that)

I spent £800 on my gaming PC in 2008 and am going to get a new graphics card in march for about £300 that will keep it going through the next console generation (though I will need to get a new PC in a few years to play all the PC exclusives that there will be).

I have bought 1 gaming PC mouse for £35 and a gaming mousemat for £12. I have been through 5 360 controllers because they are low quality and break (though to be fair, I have used them plugged into my PC quite a lot).

Which is more expensive... hmmmm...

Oh, PS3 gaming would be cheaper than PC gaming (because, compared to MS, Sony don't charge you extra to use your own internet connection that you already paid for, the consoles didn't kill themselves regularly, and the controllers don't die as fast)

NarooN2243d ago

It doesn't cost a lot to maintain a gaming PC. I could spend $500-600 right now to build a PC from scratch that will last me for the better part of over half a decade.

Dunno why console fanboys always say stupid shit like "LOLZ gammmer PC cost $2000 LOLOL"

Ghost_of_Tsushima2243d ago

Yea i spent $1,500 on a PC i built years ago that couldn't max Crysis. Maybe that's why.

Also yea you can max Crysis on a PC far cheaper now days but that's besides the point because you want to max it when you have it not 5 years down the road.

Ghost_of_Tsushima2243d ago (Edited 2243d ago )

I do think It's time for next gen consoles due to the lack of graphics.

Now do i just care about graphics? No. Because I'll still enjoy Skyrim, Gears 3, MWF3, Halo 4, and BF3 Etc.

NarooN2242d ago

It wasn't possible to max out Crysis when it first released. No hardware available was gonna do that. But guess what? Rigs from that time could still play it on High with great framerates. And rigs that could do that then can play games from today with no issue.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2242d ago
news4geeks2244d ago

5 or 6 years would imply PC is pretty much a generation ahead. I don't see this in PC games. Quite frankly, I'd be really disappointed if next gen consoles looked only as good as Battlefield 3 and Crysis on PC.