PC gamers like to talk about their systems graphics/power... It's really the biggest thing they have going for them. However is the difference in graphics really as big as we make it out to be?
Majority of PC gamers are geeks who are virgins. Console is more social. Its easier to get ur girl playing little big planet with u than playing World of war craft. Go to a house party and chances are people r playing consoles even girls. And as for the comparing consoles nd PC graphics that's just dumb. PC can be upgraded with latest hardware/software while consoles can't. May b next Gen if Sony/MS makes a console that can be upgraded then u can compare.
Consoles are not slowing down PCs. If PC gamers bought 50 million copies of a given game, compared to 2-5 million of console copies, nobody would even think about porting to consoles. It's the money you don't spend that slows down your platform. Ask yourself how many times you do day 1 purchases and how many times you wait for Steam sales. Console gamers buy their games so they get next games. It's as simple as that.
Besides, DX10's been in the market for quite a while. Why so few games take advantage of DX10 and 11? Simple answer - because there aren't many people willing to spend money on upgrades or they have laptops and can't do it.
have a bubble man. everything you said is true. for 5 years straight the arguemnet has been on graphic and how 360 is holding back the ps3. yet no one want to accept that both consoles are holding back PC gaming cause DEV's are catering to consoles owners and abandoning the pc gamers
Depends who your talking to. I personally think Its a tad silly like comparing the ps2 to the ps3 in my eyes we all no the Ps3 is capable of alot more technically then the ps2 and the fact It will never upgrade while the other does Is why the are Incomparable IMO Unless your comparining an untouched PC that was released around that time
I think its fair to say that's the job of PC. Like all cutting edge tech its damn expensive. If you want to run BF3 max settings, expect to pay a lot more than you would for a console. Consoles push forward games just as much as PCs if not more.
. Would it make sense to compare the PS3 to n64? No it wouldn't. We know that the PS3 has better graphics than the n64 so there is no point. The same goes with PC. We all know that the PC has better graphics than consoles so what's the point?
And then we have PC elists complain about how people are always fussing about PS3 graphics vs 360 graphics. BUT notice how the Wii isn't in there... that's because we all know that the PS3 and 360 have better graphics than the wii. And believe it or not there are a good number of people that think that the 360 has better graphics than the PS3 so the PS3 - 360 comparison will always be there.
This PC vs console thing is stupid because it's not like there will ever be a time when either the PS3 or 360 has better graphics than a PC game and if it were to happen it's not like you PC elists would admit something ridiculous like "wow consoles are superior" instead you'd say something like "lazy developers."
let the pc be the pc and let the consoles be the consoles. i have a ps3 and a xbox 360 i play games on them my pc i use for web browsing, email, and messaging those who use pc for gameing way to go for you but to each thier own so stfu about all this pc vs console b.s
You seem angered people have the luxury to play superior versions. Some would argue they use the Playstation 3 for web browsing too.
Funny how forums are filled with bickering console gamers who often argue about graphics yet when the PC is mentioned all of the sudden that platform is irrelevant. The Wii was often criticized for not keeping up with the Playstation 3 and the XBOX360 so why can't those two systems also be criticized? The truth is they can because just like those consoles the PC also plays games.
PC is irrelevant to a console discussion because back in 2007 when I bought my PS3 and 360, I couldn't get a PC that could run Battlefield 3 any better, or even as good as a console, today, for $400-$600.
It's like two guys arguing about whether a $30,000 Mustang or a Charger is the better car, then some guy stepping in to remind everyone his $100,000 Ferrari is superior.
That's the thing. Nobody denies the PC CAN be better. But PC fanboys love to keep reminding everyone of that fact, while pretending that graphics are the only difference that is relevant.
At least console gamers realized the Wii was cheaper for a reason and have left it alone for the past four or five years. They don't need to beat a dead horse to feel special. You can't say the same for some PC gamers.
Graphics isn't the biggest thing, not for most of us anyway that's just a nice bonus. Customisability, flexibly and innovation are the biggest things.
But as for the comparison in graphics you will never know the difference by looking at youtube videos or even screenshots. You need to see PC games running in person on a full HD TV or high resolution monitors.
If people can brag about minute graphical differences between consoles like their lives depended on it, I don't see why bragging about the vast graphical differences between pc and consoles aren't justified. Very simply, comparing graphics on consoles mattered in the first few years of this gen, because consoles were then cutting edge and competitive with PC. Bragging about console graphics now is just silly because the PC will always be better. All that matters to me is the quality of the games and the community.
PC's will arguably always have the best graphics - but only for those people who invest a lot of time and money upgrading their system.
And that's the problem , it's not a standard. Just because one PC owner can play Crysis 2 at full settings , that doesn't mean every PC owner can.
That's one advantage for console owners - they might not have the graphics of a cutting-edge pc , but every owner will be able to enjoy the same experience.
Time? I can build a PC from bare components in 20 minutes. Anything you install after that takes < 5 minutes. My friend just bought a €599 PC that will play anything. And just in case you think that equates to some $900, it doesn't, because it would still cost $599 (because hardware retailers in Europe are a**holes).
The way I see it is that consoles and PCs are extremely close to eachother in terms of operation, except consoles now have all the negatives of PC gaming and none of the positives. Now console gamers have mandatory installs, myriad updates and patches both for OS and games, closed online systems with mostly no option for dedicated servers, no mod-ability, no possibility for upgrading to improve your gameplay experience (you have to wait years and pay through the nose for a whole new machine), patchy or non-existent backwards compatibility and post-release content that you have to pay for, even it's just stupid little costumes.
"And that's the problem , it's not a standard. Just because one PC owner can play Crysis 2 at full settings , that doesn't mean every PC owner can"
Wrong, the BEAUTY of it all is that if one PC owner can play Crysis 2 at full settings, even with upgraded or modded settings, every other PC owner can. It depends if they want to buy the hardware or do what it takes to get that level of fidelity. It may not be within your means at the moment, but the possibility is ALWAYS THERE.
I can play a game with good gameplay and bad graphics but you won't see me playing a game with bad gameplay and good graphics. But if I can have both then I'm a really happy gamer.
Some people really make me chuckle. Graphics are nice, but I care about gameplay. It's the same concept as quality over quantity. Would you rather play 10 hours of awesomeness or 20 hours of crap? I thought so. Of course, people are always going to want better graphics, but my 360 and ps3 are doing fine in that department in my opinion. When I pop in uncharted, gears, or mass effect, I'm not thinking about how I wish the graphics were better. I can't imagine many people are. When the next generation does come around, I want there to be a real leap forward, not just an incremental upgrade. And pc right now is not that huge leap forward, I'm just not seeing it. Sure battlefield 3 looks nice, but is that it for what next gen systems right now would have to offer? If so, count me as one of the ones who thinks the next gen can wait until I see something really eye-popping, cuz games like the witcher and battlefield 3 while nice just ain't good enough for me to throw down money for what sony, microsoft, or nintendo come up with next time. Show me a game changer and then we'll talk.
About time an article brought this up! Most PC gamers are elitist losers who seem to look at games though telescopes to analyse every pixel and texture. Im a gamer and tend to forget about the graphics when I get into a game. Its about the gameplay you retards and people who say consoles are 'slowing down' graphical progress, thats not true. Developers are free to develop exclusively for PC with the latest hardware but its a testiment to how good consoles (even at 5 years old) still are that they dont. Plus the market is way bigger.
Im playing the BF3 beta at the minute and recently finished KZ3 and let me tell you, KZ3 looked head and shoulders above BF3 graphically, even from what I have seen on the PC too. Say beta and PS3 version all you want, the jump between the full release wont be that drastic.
I grew up playing Pong on the Atari 2600 and I still play Couterstrike 1.6 and DOTA on LAN with my friends at computer shops that has Jurassic PCs. So to me graphics is not a main factor, its a bonus.
Amazing graphics is a nice thing to have but it does not make or break a game.
Ahhh once more the evil PC vs. Console graphics debate....Yawn how boring and trite! Surely this time could be spent on providing more information on MORE upcoming games like MGS Rising or Hawken but this is what editors get their jollies to!
PS3 vs. 360 graphics debate I guess is entertaining but vs. the PC is just STUPID!!
Why is it Stupid? well I'll tell you why. Do you compare a V8 Mustang to a V12 Ferrari? NO you wouldn't cause a Ferrari doing 0 to 60 in 3 seconds blows the doors off a Mustang's time off 5 seconds! A Ferrari is dam near doing a 100 before a Mustang hits 60.
My point to this is......when Consoles start pumping out AAA quality titles that run NATIVELY in 1080p with 4xMSAA with ALL the eye candy on then start comparing graphics. Until then just leave it alone.
BF3 is shaping up to be a great game no matter what platform. DICE has did all they can to ensure the game play quality is the same across all 3 platforms. We all know the PC offers the ability to upgrade with changing tech and unlimited Power so therefore these PC vs, console graphics comparisons only serve as a guide to the consoles as to what they need to improve upon for the next console Gen!
So next Gen Native 1080p 4xMSAA more eye candy and higher frame rates!
I have never heard of any console maker or Nintendo give a frame rate average of their games.
PLUS I do know the Wii axed the HD4870 version of the r700 series AMD GPU and have gone lower so 1080p is still attainable but 80fps is not happening!!
I see PC's as different to consoles the way handhelds are different to consoles. They all have their strengths and weaknesses but you won't see people comparing the Vita to the PS3 like their meant to be on par.
graphics war? lmfao PCs get upgraded multiple times a year. Of course PC graphics are way above 5-6 year old consoles that don't get their graphics updated, ever.
1) Most PC gamers own a PS3\360 or both 2) Who upgrades multiple times a year, that is a console fanboy myth ever there was one more more like every 2 years for the average gamer now (@ naruogameking) 3)This graphic thing between PS3\360 is just as stupid get a life, your money your choice get over it ( @ fanboys) 4)I still have a megadrve N64 Dreamcast PS1 kicking about and couple month ago had a go at Black on the Xbox for a few hours so graphics an issue yes in some cases but not in others, its the stupid fanboys that make stupid comparisons with folk that have clearly nothing better to do with their time. Im away to play RO2 lol see not bothered with graphics : P
inferior consoles slowing down graphical progress
let the pc be the pc and let the consoles be the consoles. i have a ps3 and a xbox 360 i play games on them my pc i use for web browsing, email, and messaging those who use pc for gameing way to go for you but to each thier own so stfu about all this pc vs console b.s
no
Graphics isn't the biggest thing, not for most of us anyway that's just a nice bonus. Customisability, flexibly and innovation are the biggest things.
But as for the comparison in graphics you will never know the difference by looking at youtube videos or even screenshots. You need to see PC games running in person on a full HD TV or high resolution monitors.