lmao... are you serious dude? That kills me... I have the same 8800gt in my computer today that i did when i built my computer in '07. Anyone who thinks you have to put a new videocard in a computer every six months to keep it getting "killer graphics" hasn't ever gamed on a computer before. I play everything perfectly fine, crysis maxed in dx9 w/o aa was an awesome game... it wasn't meant to be played in dx10 maxed out w/ aa upon release... so dont even go that route..
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
At what point will console graphics be outdated?
- Thread starter nullzero
- Start date
lmao... are you serious dude? That kills me... I have the same 8800gt in my computer today that i did when i built my computer in '07. Anyone who thinks you have to put a new videocard in a computer every six months to keep it getting "killer graphics" hasn't ever gamed on a computer before. I play everything perfectly fine, crysis maxed in dx9 w/o aa was an awesome game... it wasn't meant to be played in dx10 maxed out w/ aa upon release... so dont even go that route..
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Compared to my 5970 at 256GB/s or when overclocked 320GB/sec it's laughable really
Console graphics are outdated compared to modern PC builds with modern parts (yes, that means you have had to upgrade from 5 years ago). But does that really matter? The market does not seem to really care as PC game sales drop further and further.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
PC game sales aren't dropping at all, 2009 was a record year. So, I guess it does matter.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Compared to my 5970 at 256GB/s or when overclocked 320GB/sec it's laughable really
More like pathetic.
In terms of overall sales, the publishers don't care, no.
Even though it does matter, at the same time those who are making games do not care about advanced PC features since consoles can't handle PC graphics, so they continue to develop for five year old hardware like it's going out of style. Oh, wait...
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 7,268
Comparing PCs to consoles is so 2006.
common man
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 102
On paper PC graphics is a lot better but in reality console graphics are decent. MW2 1680 x 1050, 4x AA, 75 FPS on my PC is great but MW2 on my 360 looks nice too. Console graphics is good enough that graphics isn't the deciding factor for me. Gameplay & convenience are most important. FPS games = mouse & keyboard ; other games = 360. I'm hoping that Project Natal & Sony Move are gamechangers for gameplay. I am impressed with the quality PS3 & 360 can deliver given their limited hardware. PS3 will allow 3D Blu Ray (not that it'll matter for the next couple years since its the early stage) and MW2 looks decent on 360 despite the machine being 5 years old.
We have to admit that when the PS3 and XBOX360 came out at the time, they were miles above any PC gaming system, specially because they were developped in a way to really take advantage of their hardware. The XBOX360 has a special section on it's GPU where it can do AA for free and other video effects, the PS3 uses XDR memory which is really fast memory compared to DDR3. The XBOX360 is a hyper threading triple core beast, while the PS3 has 7 SPE cores to execute special tasks like for example permit enhanced graphics for the game Uncharted 2.
Yet we have to admit that the PCs are evolving, and since 2005, we went from dual core to today with the announced 6 core HT enabled codenamed Gulftown that is almost available to buy. System RAM can be upped to 24 GB with a bandwidth of 20+ GB/s . Graphics cards today has their GDDR bandwidth above 150 GB/s and their transistor count pass the 2 billion (3 billion for the new Nvidia Fermi). Shader power on modern GPUs are specially powerful with 1600 shader cores all running at 850mhz for the HD5870 compared to 16 shader cores for the R480 at 540mhz back in 2005.
We're in a totally different technology landscape today than back in 2005/2006 and game companies will have to accept that and USE the new PC technology at their disposal BECAUSE we don't buy the new stuff just to tag our hardware in footnotes or just to say we can max out the features in our old games and stay satisfied with that. Not only that, but I don't think that it is tolerable to obtain console game ports to the PC which don't take in consideration the more advanced hardware and say, hmmm well it's just a console port. I think game developers should consider that PC owners expect more than just console ports and that PC games should always be above and beyond what a console game is, simply because the hardware makes it possible. And even if the hardware isn't powerful enough, a PC game should push the envelope so we can always dream of a better graphics solution (like when Crysis came out).
That said, I don't think the PC game scene is dead, I do hope for something better for the PC. I'm addicted to the keyboard + mouse gaming action. I don't think counterstrike would work on a console because you just can't beat the keyboard + mouse combo in an FPS. New online POS systems like what you can find in STEAM with downloadable content is imho the way of the future for PC content retrieval and for gaming.
Anyway, I'm waiting for Metro 2033 and for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat.
So, is console game graphics outdated? I will have to say NO. Sadly. When will they be outdated? Well like I stated before, when game compagnies will treat PCs like a more advanced platform like they should have always done since the new consoles came out. Will Direct X 11 change anything for PC gaming graphics? I would say not much really.
Yet we have to admit that the PCs are evolving, and since 2005, we went from dual core to today with the announced 6 core HT enabled codenamed Gulftown that is almost available to buy. System RAM can be upped to 24 GB with a bandwidth of 20+ GB/s . Graphics cards today has their GDDR bandwidth above 150 GB/s and their transistor count pass the 2 billion (3 billion for the new Nvidia Fermi). Shader power on modern GPUs are specially powerful with 1600 shader cores all running at 850mhz for the HD5870 compared to 16 shader cores for the R480 at 540mhz back in 2005.
We're in a totally different technology landscape today than back in 2005/2006 and game companies will have to accept that and USE the new PC technology at their disposal BECAUSE we don't buy the new stuff just to tag our hardware in footnotes or just to say we can max out the features in our old games and stay satisfied with that. Not only that, but I don't think that it is tolerable to obtain console game ports to the PC which don't take in consideration the more advanced hardware and say, hmmm well it's just a console port. I think game developers should consider that PC owners expect more than just console ports and that PC games should always be above and beyond what a console game is, simply because the hardware makes it possible. And even if the hardware isn't powerful enough, a PC game should push the envelope so we can always dream of a better graphics solution (like when Crysis came out).
That said, I don't think the PC game scene is dead, I do hope for something better for the PC. I'm addicted to the keyboard + mouse gaming action. I don't think counterstrike would work on a console because you just can't beat the keyboard + mouse combo in an FPS. New online POS systems like what you can find in STEAM with downloadable content is imho the way of the future for PC content retrieval and for gaming.
Anyway, I'm waiting for Metro 2033 and for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat.
So, is console game graphics outdated? I will have to say NO. Sadly. When will they be outdated? Well like I stated before, when game compagnies will treat PCs like a more advanced platform like they should have always done since the new consoles came out. Will Direct X 11 change anything for PC gaming graphics? I would say not much really.
Last edited:
midgymidge
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 33
I havent read what the others say so im not sure if im doubling the topic here or not but here goes:
Theres one word that I think of why soo many companies tend to make games for the console market than the PC = PIRACY!!!!!
As you see companies took a heavy blow for the past couple of years becuase alot of their big expected games hit on peer to peer, torrents or even in some dodgy asian country that sells pirated games,cd etc before they hit the shelves so thats why they tend to direct more attention to consoles because chip/mod/ or even copied 360 and ps3 cd's or blu rays are expensive and piracy is a minimum in the console department.maybe in the future someone will invent that chip who knows. but for now even how much US gamers complain about it I guess we cant do anything about it coz it also reflects on the newer generation of gamers which is born with consoles instead of someone like me (old skool) who couldnt afford a ps1 that time so I went to PC games instead!! thats my personal opinion about it and feel free to correct me if im wrong but hey thats just my individual opinion here! thank you
Theres one word that I think of why soo many companies tend to make games for the console market than the PC = PIRACY!!!!!
As you see companies took a heavy blow for the past couple of years becuase alot of their big expected games hit on peer to peer, torrents or even in some dodgy asian country that sells pirated games,cd etc before they hit the shelves so thats why they tend to direct more attention to consoles because chip/mod/ or even copied 360 and ps3 cd's or blu rays are expensive and piracy is a minimum in the console department.maybe in the future someone will invent that chip who knows. but for now even how much US gamers complain about it I guess we cant do anything about it coz it also reflects on the newer generation of gamers which is born with consoles instead of someone like me (old skool) who couldnt afford a ps1 that time so I went to PC games instead!! thats my personal opinion about it and feel free to correct me if im wrong but hey thats just my individual opinion here! thank you
Last edited:
Plague_Injected
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,621
The graphics are already outdated. Bad Company 2 demonstrates this very well...some levels on the consoles look downright disgusting, especially compared to the PC.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
No, not "any" gaming systems, if you had a top end graphics card at the time you'd have more GPU power, especially so if you ran Crossfire or SLI.
Consoles have never really been ahead, in fact it's necessarily not possible for them to be ahead in terms of GPU power because they use Nvidia and AMD to make their GPUs and the technology used is largely what has been developed for the PC environment.
All the developement between the Xbox360s GPU and the one Microsoft use in their next gen console, all that technology advancement has been (and will be) made on the PC, there is little R&D that goes into console GPU technology at all, this is why they're so cheap, they are constantly behind the curve in terms of technology.
common man
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 102
consoles are mainstream for masses which means much, much more profit. your typical person isn't going to look at benchmarks and build his own computer.
I think the OP needs to be more specific. If you compare it to PC gaming, yes it's a silly question. Console graphics look like crap. Even so, for gamers that don't have or like gaming on PC's, the graphics look great.
Console sales: As far as console games dieing out, it's far from it. PC games will die out way before console does.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,197
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
I don't find console graphics to be outdated, yet. By the numbers, the consoles are already vastly outdated by the latest gaming PC, but that doesn't tell you the whole story. The production effort and industry clout behind the latest console exclusives go beyond anything feasible for the majority of PC centric titles.
In its own way, GoW 3 is more impressive to me than the latest high res PC fps. The character detail and IQ is incredible. The only area held back from a console platform are the background textures. With a PC's video memory, every surface could have a massively detailed texture.
I think there is a lot of time left before the mass market is ready for the next thing, 3 years ? Discounting Wii HD, which rumor suggests won't even be as powerful as current systems, I expect MS to launch first. And then we'll see another period of explosive growth in graphics.
I believe the latest PC hw is going to waste. Because the development costs to push the graphics envelope is getting expensive. Even id "sold out". Too risky of a business environment to focus on high end graphics PC games. So this generation's consoles have remained viable for longer than usual.
In its own way, GoW 3 is more impressive to me than the latest high res PC fps. The character detail and IQ is incredible. The only area held back from a console platform are the background textures. With a PC's video memory, every surface could have a massively detailed texture.
I think there is a lot of time left before the mass market is ready for the next thing, 3 years ? Discounting Wii HD, which rumor suggests won't even be as powerful as current systems, I expect MS to launch first. And then we'll see another period of explosive growth in graphics.
I believe the latest PC hw is going to waste. Because the development costs to push the graphics envelope is getting expensive. Even id "sold out". Too risky of a business environment to focus on high end graphics PC games. So this generation's consoles have remained viable for longer than usual.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,484
Console "graphics" are outdated the moment they begin, in comparison to what PCs can do.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
To the R480 vs RV870 comparison, 1 of the R480's pipes is significantly more capable than 1 of the shader processors on the RV870 (if you want to speak from a highly abstract view, FPS/unit type of thing, the ratio is probably on the order or 10:1, but even still, thats 160: 1600).
@midgymidge on PC piracy vs console piracy
that's definitely an incentive, maybe the incentive, but it doesn't change the fact that the PS3 and 360 use 5 year old hardware --its highly customized hardware, both Sony and Microsoft probably have given tens of millions of dollars to engineers at IBM for some seriously awesome silicon, but it was still 5 years ago.
I cant agree more with you. What I love about consoles is that they actually force game developers to be creative when they face hardware limitation. You almost never see that with PC games.
God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, MW2... are all titles that put more emphasis on details, polygons pushed, lighting and art direction rather than being able to crunch 1080p resolutions, and in the end, it just paid much more.
I think they are just too many PC snobs here who can't wait to brag about 2560x1600 display and triple SLI setup. Get over it: having the epitome of hardware doesn't mean the same in term of software/graphics. I think the best example of this would be WoW. There are a lot of people here playing WoW on insane rigs, and yet the game still looks like it came from a N64
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
Sorry,but the use of the words "consoles" and "creative" in the same sentence was too much for me. The reason game developers don't push the envelope as much lately with PC games is because it's easier and more profitable to churn out outdated console ports. Consoles may dominate the gaming market,but they're holding back creative game development,not encouraging it.
Console graphics have yet to be ahead of the PC. At least with regard to the current generation of consoles. From day one of the XBOX 360's time on the market I noticed that games available for both it and the PC still looked better on the PC. Though to be fair, at the time you needed to have a really high end PC to keep up with what was then a $400 console.
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
You still have to spend much more on a PC to get the same graphics as consoles (not the wii ofcoarse). but i dont see what the big deal is, PC have better graphics but really is it that big of a deal, i mean consoles have great graphics, i dont see a game being that much better just because graphics are a little better.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,312
agreed.
having great visuals is nice and all, but I'll take great gameplay any day of the week over "pretty" graphics. Not saying that consoles are better or vice versa, but people get way too hung up on "graphics" for some reason.
l00segravel
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 474
New gaming systems use 32bit architectures since xbox(original)...
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
the "bit" stat is meaningless nowadays
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
No, to get 1024x720 res with medium details, a PC would cost very little.
It isn't just about better graphics. The performance on a higher end PC can offer fewer slowdowns and better/more responsive controls.
In comparison the graphics difference can be huge. It isn't just resolution, but the jagged edges, poor, low resolution textures and other things that come into play.
Not that this matters. Back in the day when people spoke of 16bit vs. 8bit consoles they didn't really know what they were talking about.
I wouldn't say that is true in all cases, but in regard to game consoles, it is.
This is so true. Many people don't seem to understand that this is what they are really talking about when matching up console graphics vs. PC graphics. You get 1024x720 with 2xAA *IF* you are lucky. The texture resolution on medium settings on the PC should be right about where they are on the consoles give or take in some games.
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
When it comes to graphics i have to disagree, IMO the graphics on a 360 or ps3 are good enough to were "better" graphics will not effect gameplay, anything further than console graphics is just to "look pretty", i have seen some very high end computer graphics and personally i dont think it's THAT much different than a console at 1080p, i mean you can see a difference for sure but when you compare price with product, i cant justify it.
As far as performance, maybe because i am strickly a console gamer, i cant really tell the difference, probably because i SUCK with a keyboard a mouse, but from a third person view (watching someone else play) i doesnt seem to be noticable, i have to say the only thing i can notice is loading times are decreased, but really, thats nothing to me.
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
it might not cost a whole lot but i doubt you can get a brand new rig for close to 200 bucks (the price of a xbox360)
Pure and simple bullshit. The vast majority of PS3 and Xbox360 games output at 720p. Change the resolution of your PC games to 1280x720 and tell me what kind of hardware you need to run games at that resolution.
I have an 8800GT and a 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor I game on. For what I want to do with it, the 8800GT is getting long in the tooth. However, the games I play I can still run 1920x1200. My latest purchase was Mass Effect 2 and I have that game maxed out graphically (I know it's not the best example with the lack of graphical options) but it's still maxed out. It's also rendering at a much higher resolution than any console. Dragon Age is another recent purchase and it's running just about maxed out graphically at 1920x1200. Again, it's not the best example but these are a couple of my recent purchases of newer games.
Now, take my same hardware, reduce the resolution to 1280x720 and see how many games you can max out graphically on the PC. I bet there aren't very many games you can't max out the graphics on and they'll probably still look better than the console. I haven't put a dime into this system except for storage upgrades for more than two years. The system I had previously would have probably done just as well at that resolution as it was an E6400 and 7600GT.
If you want a comparison between PCs and consoles, I suggest you look at the resolution games are rendered at. Consoles are usually rendering about 921,600 pixels at 1280x720. My PC is rendering about 2,304,000 pixels at 1920x1200. Keep in mind that my PC is probably doing more to those individual pixels on average than a console is as well. Three or four years ago I built an AMD X2 system which would have had no trouble keeping up with console resolutions for a hell of a lot less than either an Xbox360 or a PS3.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that PCs are so much more expensive when that is not the case. Sure, it will cost more if you want to push 2x, 3x, 4x or even 5x the number of pixels with much higher resolutions than consoles can do. Hooking up a 720p or 1080p TV to the PC and rendering at the same resolutions as the consoles is going to show you a much different story.
Simply put, consoles get by with mediocrity. They seem a lot better because they are better than the previous console but only when compared to other consoles. Raise the stakes a bit and it's a different story.
Most quality games look nice hooked up to a tv sitting 6ft away.
Hooked up to my 23inch lcd, the jaggies and low resolution makes my PS3 look very outdated compared to my current pc. GOW3 might be a little different, looks like it has some decent AA going on.
There's really a HUGE difference imo. I don't have a high end pc, but the visuals it can do absolutely destroys anything from a console at 1080p/any res. It's probably better to be oblivious to this though.
Hooked up to my 23inch lcd, the jaggies and low resolution makes my PS3 look very outdated compared to my current pc. GOW3 might be a little different, looks like it has some decent AA going on.
There's really a HUGE difference imo. I don't have a high end pc, but the visuals it can do absolutely destroys anything from a console at 1080p/any res. It's probably better to be oblivious to this though.
Last edited:
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
i dont know about older games but im pretty sure most new games run at 1080p regardless, can anyone here link to a PC advertised that will run on par or above a 360 for 200? no need for a monitor but on that note, when it comes to afforadbility think about this,Pure and simple bullshit. The vast majority of PS3 and Xbox360 games output at 720p. Change the resolution of your PC games to 1280x720 and tell me what kind of hardware you need to run games at that resolution.
I have an 8800GT and a 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor I game on. For what I want to do with it, the 8800GT is getting long in the tooth. However, the games I play I can still run 1920x1200. My latest purchase was Mass Effect 2 and I have that game maxed out graphically (I know it's not the best example with the lack of graphical options) but it's still maxed out. It's also rendering at a much higher resolution than any console. Dragon Age is another recent purchase and it's running just about maxed out graphically at 1920x1200. Again, it's not the best example but these are a couple of my recent purchases of newer games.
Now, take my same hardware, reduce the resolution to 1280x720 and see how many games you can max out graphically on the PC. I bet there aren't very many games you can't max out the graphics on and they'll probably still look better than the console. I haven't put a dime into this system except for storage upgrades for more than two years. The system I had previously would have probably done just as well at that resolution as it was an E6400 and 7600GT.
If you want a comparison between PCs and consoles, I suggest you look at the resolution games are rendered at. Consoles are usually rendering about 921,600 pixels at 1280x720. My PC is rendering about 2,304,000 pixels at 1920x1200. Keep in mind that my PC is probably doing more to those individual pixels on average than a console is as well. Three or four years ago I built an AMD X2 system which would have had no trouble keeping up with console resolutions for a hell of a lot less than either an Xbox360 or a PS3.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that PCs are so much more expensive when that is not the case. Sure, it will cost more if you want to push 2x, 3x, 4x or even 5x the number of pixels with much higher resolutions than consoles can do. Hooking up a 720p or 1080p TV to the PC and rendering at the same resolutions as the consoles is going to show you a much different story.
Simply put, consoles get by with mediocrity. They seem a lot better because they are better than the previous console but only when compared to other consoles. Raise the stakes a bit and it's a different story.
when you purchase a console 99.99% of the time you will hook it up to tv that is in the living room, bedroom etc... point being you dont need a stand alone monitor... with a PC you have to purchase a new monitor or tv (i have never seen someones home tv hooked up to there computer, not sayin it doesnt happen but rare). anyways you have to factor in the cost of the monitor, so when you add that in, its economically sound to purchase a console. when its all said and done a brand new gaming pc setup usually cost around a grand brand new. while a console usually cost only $400 when you buy extra controllers, adons (wifi adapter, cooling fans, charging kits, etc)
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,075
Now, take my same hardware, reduce the resolution to 1280x720 and see how many games you can max out graphically on the PC. I bet there aren't very many games you can't max out the graphics on and they'll probably still look better than the console. I haven't put a dime into this system except for storage upgrades for more than two years. The system I had previously would have probably done just as well at that resolution as it was an E6400 and 7600GT.
If you want a comparison between PCs and consoles, I suggest you look at the resolution games are rendered at. Consoles are usually rendering about 921,600 pixels at 1280x720. My PC is rendering about 2,304,000 pixels at 1920x1200. Keep in mind that my PC is probably doing more to those individual pixels on average than a console is as well. Three or four years ago I built an AMD X2 system which would have had no trouble keeping up with console resolutions for a hell of a lot less than either an Xbox360 or a PS3.
I'm tired of hearing the argument that PCs are so much more expensive when that is not the case. Sure, it will cost more if you want to push 2x, 3x, 4x or even 5x the number of pixels with much higher resolutions than consoles can do. Hooking up a 720p or 1080p TV to the PC and rendering at the same resolutions as the consoles is going to show you a much different story.
Simply put, consoles get by with mediocrity. They seem a lot better because they are better than the previous console but only when compared to other consoles. Raise the stakes a bit and it's a different story.
Well considering of my gamer friends is still rocking a Athlon X2 and a 7600GT, I find this humorous. News games like BC2 on the Athlon X2 + 7600GT look like shit and run poorly regardless of the settings. And its not like its just BC2, most current games run like shit on a Athlon X2 with a 7600GT after dumbing down the resolution and quality. Even slower paced games like The Witcher and Mass Effect 1 run pretty bad as well. We have formatted that system multiple times and tried different OSes because they *really* do not want to spend money on new PC hardware. Even once you find the sweet spot for a given game, you are likely to run into significant slowdown issues. You would cringe to see how poorly some of these newer games run on a system like you keep referencing.
You are way too tied up in counting pixels, there is a lot more to having an enjoyable game experience than just pushing X number of pixels to the screen. Many older systems do not provide enjoyable game experiences compared to dropping a disc in a console and play games @720P with no slowdown.
No one said that consoles weren't more economical. They certainly are. Still, when the two are compared the PC destroys the consoles in regard to visuals. Though you pay a hefty premium comparatively to do so.
I'm pretty sure most games might be upscaled to 1080 but very few are "true" 1080. The hardware doesn't have enough horsepower to run at 1920x1080 smoothly on 95% of games. I'm not trying to bash consoles, but having both hooked up to the same display, there simply is no comparison.
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
agreed, but my point i guess is that visuals arent everyhting in regards to consoles being outdated, look at games like MW2, great on consoles, horrible on PC (so ive heard) that game was designed for consoles and converted for PC. although im sure the game looks better on the PC, gameplay and MP play is decreased, regardless of the setup. as long as companys follow that trend consoles will never be outdated because of the market. its true that if consoles was never invented, the gaming industry would likely be further along, the industry is holding it back, therfore consoles will never be outdated.
deweatherly
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,273
a little of topic but on this, not sure how familer you are with the 360 but it has a "recommened display setting" i used it and it put the resolution at 1720x???(dont remember the number) but anyways i compared it to 1080p and i could not tell the difference...that number it gave me wasnt even an option unless you used the "recommened setting"
anyone know anything about this??
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Then factor in the cost of a TV with the console. Don't give me any "But I already own a TV" BS either. You probably already own a PC too (I hope).
Seriously, if you don't have a computer in your house, you're probably Amish. Usually all that is needed on a computer that is a few years old is a $150 video card to severely outclass console counterparts. You could easily drop $100 on a processor and $100 on a video card and be playing games at true 1080p.
You can easily buy parts out of the FS/FT area and put together a PC for sub $400 which would play games above 1024x720
Also, no, console games are not running at true 1080p. It is called upscaling, and upscaling looks like ass.