When will PC graphics again outpace Console?

N

Nakamori

Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
530
Seeing that the PS3 has come out and the Xbox360 starting to hit stride with games being specifically optimized for it (Didn't see anything close to GoW at launch), It seems like console games have matched PC games in terms of HDR and AA, and in many cases when hooked up to a HD tv it looks plain better than someone with a mid-range gaming PC.

My question is when DX10 comes out, will we once again see a noticable difference in the visuals of a contemporary PC game and a contemporary console game? If not right away, when?
 
Lot of computer gaming companies are gearing towards console first and than PC...

It's just the GOW uses new Unreal engine... We have to wait for our games next year...

And we will get that level and more... Come Crysis, Alan Wake and Unreal next year it will make those consoles look ancient...
 
Hmm, from what I understand, crysis isn't comming out on to XBOX-360 for a reason. The xbox 360 isn't powerful enough to play it.
 
pc is always ahead of console systems and will always be.on pc you can change your settings to differ other players so you may get the best performance possible. on console your stuck with what they give you.
 
Yes they will overpower the consoles, but you still pay out the a**. Worth it? Every penny!
 
i'd be bold enough to say the 8800gtx already beats the PS3 and xbox360.

it's not a matter of when.

i think it's a matter of, when will consoles surpass PC graphics? NEVAR!
 
Are you kidding? Current top end gaming rigs far outpace consoles. A single 8800GTX video card has more processing power than an entire PS3.

Personally, I think the PS3 looks like shit and have not been impressed by anything I've seen on it thus far.
 
Nakamori said:
My question is when DX10 comes out, will we once again see a noticable difference in the visuals of a contemporary PC game and a contemporary console game? If not right away, when?
Click to expand...

Like people have said, PC's never lost the lead and already had superior performance and quality, as the consoles launched.

But as you point out, most contemporary PC games aren't built with the enthusiast in mind and often don't take advantage of hardware available at retail for early adopters. For console games, it's a closed system and the developers know exactly what they are writing for.

One thing you can say about PC games though is their scalability. Even though game X might not utilise the high-end features of your graphics card, it can certainly scale to resolutions much higher than consoles, with higher resolution textures and image quality. I still have to sit back and gawp at Dark Age of Camelot (a 5 year old MMORPG that uses the Gamebryo engine, with the last graphics engine upgrade about 2 years ago). It forgoes normal mapping and high-end fanciness for just good looking, high-res textures that look stunning, even in the distance, at 2560x1600, running silky smooth with stupid levels of anisotropic filtering and antialiasing. Half Life 2 uses the same approach, using high-res textures to get decent visuals and still maintain compatibility with older cards. It's an approach that scales really well at extreme-HD resolutions.

It's also worth pointing out that Gears of War could easily have been released on the PC at the same time and likely would have looked better but Microsoft want people to buy their console and so it became an exclusive. It's not just the technology in the machines that dictates what we see on our screens.
 
Computers are way more powerful than consoles.

But i have yet to see a PC game that looks as realistic as some of the 360 games out there...from 20 feet back at walmart, watching someone play the Boxing demo on the 360, I thought i was watching boxing on TV! Even closer up, its absolutely amazing...now I know PC's are more powerful, but I havent seen anything close to that level of nice.

And then the PS3 demo at EB...there is a rally truck racing game on HDTV...I have never seen the background in a racing game look more crisp and clear and wonderful...

I don't doubt that PC's can match that, but they havent, from what I've seen. A PC that could match that would also cost about twice as much...

I think it's that console games are made for that single console, the coders know exactly how to optimize for the hardware, whereas on PC that have to lay off a bit, as every machine is a bit different....

Anybody else know what I'm talking about, as far as that boxing game etc goes?
 
Haste266 said:
i'd be bold enough to say the 8800gtx already beats the PS3 and xbox360.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't own one (yet...) but from all the reviews and screenshots I've seen I don't think there is any comparison. Just the fact that it can average 48.7fps @ 1600x1200 with maxed settings in Oblivion (from the [H] review) is something that no console can touch.


Brent's 8800 review on [H]
 
did it ever occur to you people that the two are entirely different markets? lol good god, the ignorance on forums lately has been astounding...

I own a 360, and a fairly 'high end' gaming rig...i know an overclocked 7900gt is not amazing -but i refuse to pay more than $200 on a graphics card. The fact that an 8800GTS costs as much if not more than an xbox 360 w/ a game or two says something...

Consoles are for different things...I would never play that boxing game on a computer, why? because i'd need two...and then two huge TV's. just to play multiplayer...

And heck I still play my gamecube - freaking awesome games on there - to play with friends. Super Monkey Ball? how is such a simple stupid game so entertaining - and hey it has a crap resolution to boot.

Consoles != PC's and PC's != Consoles. they both do different things. I dont think anyone actually expects a consoles graphics to be better than a PC, do they?
 
Think of it like cars;

Console = Stock Mustang GT (Without the ability to modify it)
PC = 350Z (OR Any Tunable ride)

The Mustang GT is the Same Price (With options available), performs the same and everyone can afford one.

Take the 350Z for instance, you can buy one for $27K new (Same price as the Mustang GT) and get similar performance. (often better with the right drivers.. :p ) Some folks will add a Supercharger for $4K a year in to it and always blow the doors off the Mustang. Some will add Twin Turbo's off the Line and have 3x the Performance of hte Mustang.


You can spend $399 on an Xbox 360 and play all of those games
You can spend $399 on a Budget PC with a 7900GS in it and have comperable performance.

OR

You can spend $1000 on a mid-level PC and blow the 360 Away in a years time...

See where i;m going here...
 
TheBluePill said:
Think of it like cars;

Console = Stock Mustang GT (Without the ability to modify it)
PC = 350Z (OR Any Tunable ride)

The Mustang GT is the Same Price (With options available), performs the same and everyone can afford one.

Take the 350Z for instance, you can buy one for $27K new (Same price as the Mustang GT) and get similar performance. (often better with the right drivers.. :p ) Some folks will add a Supercharger for $4K a year in to it and always blow the doors off the Mustang. Some will add Twin Turbo's off the Line and have 3x the Performance of hte Mustang.


You can spend $399 on an Xbox 360 and play all of those games
You can spend $399 on a Budget PC with a 7900GS in it and have comperable performance.

OR

You can spend $1000 on a mid-level PC and blow the 360 Away in a years time...

See where i;m going here...
Click to expand...

That's the worst analogy I've ever read. You do realize that the Mustang whoops the snot out of the 350Z in the 1/4? Do you also realize that you can throw a turbo or supercharger setup on the Mustang? Do you realize that when you do that, you're looking at 450HP easy?

Let's not even talk about what GTO's, Corvette's and the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300C SRT8's can do to a 350Z.

Sure the 350Z can out handle some of those cars on a twisty road course, but again you can mod those cars and change that.

I'd match my old 2002 Firehawk against the 350Z in any category any day of the week.

In no way is your XBox 360-PC analogy valid.
 
This argument has been covered countless times before and always ends up in the same place. Of course the PC will have better graphics you can change it to fit your needs over time. Consoles are static in the main hardware and you work with what ya got. In the end though isnt it all about gameplay? I know today we have come to expect at least decent graphics but gameplay has taken a back seat, not necessarily with the posters here, but with the mainstream croud and certain developers. I am one to own and play both a PC and Console(s) as there are games on both types of platforms that appeal to me. For people to say that the PS3 and Xbox 360 are pieces of shit compared to their $3000 uber gaming rig is just childish.
 
Dan_D said:
That's the worst analogy I've ever read. You do realize that the Mustang whoops the snot out of the 350Z in the 1/4? Do you also realize that you can throw a turbo or supercharger setup on the Mustang? Do you realize that when you do that, you're looking at 450HP easy?

Let's not even talk about what GTO's, Corvette's and the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300C SRT8's can do to a 350Z.

Sure the 350Z can out handle some of those cars on a twisty road course, but again you can mod those cars and change that.

I'd match my old 2002 Firehawk against the 350Z in any category any day of the week.

In no way is your XBox 360-PC analogy valid.
Click to expand...
Said it all for me, thanks!
 
They are two very separate experiences, and I don't think they really warrant comparison.

Yes, PC graphics processors will continually outstrip console graphics, and that is kindof the point of the PC as a gaming platform. It can evolve and adapt more easily than the console, which has to keep the gamer satisfied for 4-5 years in order to turn a decent profit.

Because you are generally ~8-10 feet away from the TV, the console games don't have to present the attention to detail that PC games do, because they are viewed from 1-2 feet.

Console vs PC is an old argument, and a stupid one.
 
I've got an XBox 360 and I am enjoying it immensely. That being said, I am still primarily a PC gamer. It is my platform of choice. You get a completely different experience and I for one don't play the same types of games on PC that I do consoles.

For example, Dead Rising, or racing games are generally something better experienced on a console. Fighting games like Street Fighter Alpha 3 are also better on console. FPS and RTS games, it's computer all the way.
 
I was watching a PS3 demo with some racing game the other day, and while the textures looked great, there were very visible frame-rate issues when the player was actually racing (as apposed to watching a slow-mo crash). The Wii was right next to it, running that retarded truck rocket booster racing game - and while the graphics reminded me of the N64, there weren't any visible stutters.

I also checked out GoW - and while it looked nice, I think DOOM 3 had it beat - it might be comparable to UT2K4 or so. No stutters though. I was struck by how incredibly inane the demo was; the player never took a hit (except when he blew up a barrel that was too close). Nothing ever shot at him - he just walked from place to place shooting creatures that just stood there and died. Cover was never taken, or needed. After skillfully moving to the side to avoid some rolling boss-like things (that still didn't shoot), I left.

I'm still playing Okami and Ratchet & Clank. Everything else is PC.
 
I'd own a 360 anyday for 300 but I think the PS3's price compared to what you get out of it is a bit steep. 600 bucks will buy you a low-end PC and upgrade-ability. I think a big issue here is that very few people are going to buy a PS3 at such a high price. I said it one other time also, gamespots 360 / PS3 comparison on NFS Carbon is night and day. Anti-alaising, lighting, and detail are terrible compared. Ofcourse this is the PS3's debut, but the NFS line is a highly bought retail game. C'mon! :eek: And hey, I'm no Sony stiffler, got a PS, PS2 and 30 games to go along with it, but times change 360 imo ftw.
 
blacken said:
I'd own a 360 anyday for 300 but I think the PS3's price compared to what you get out of it is a bit steep. 600 bucks will buy you a low-end PC and upgrade-ability. I think a big issue here is that very few people are going to buy a PS3 at such a high price. I said it one other time also, gamespots 360 / PS3 comparison on NFS Carbon is night and day. Anti-alaising, lighting, and detail are terrible compared. Ofcourse this is the PS3's debut, but the NFS line is a highly bought retail game. C'mon! :eek: And hey, I'm no Sony stiffler, got a PS, PS2 and 30 games to go along with it, but times change 360 imo ftw.
Click to expand...

Does the 360 version of NFC look better than it does on PS3? I've never read the article you mentioned, which is why I asked.
 
I can end the arguement easier for you all:

The hardware we have can trump the stuff in the PS3 and 360 but there are NO GAMES THAT USE IT. 90% of the games we get use dated graphics, and the stuff that comes out thats more recent, like Splinter Cell Double Agent, Rainbow Six Vegas, etc, is usually ported & POORLY OPTIMIZED anyways.

So we wait for like a few titles a year that look good, and spend thousands more on our hardware.

Every 360 game, even the shitty ones, look better than PC shitty ones. Thats plain FACT. Fact of the matter is on the highest of high end PC has the hardware (obviously) to do more than the 360 -- but how often if ever does it happen? Not really often. Oh wow, Crysis! 1 damn game. The consoles are getting TONS OF GORGEOUS games. Not just a handful, you can go down the 07 release list for 360/PS3 and pull out a ton of gorgeous looking games. The gameplay quality is totally up in the air since the games aren't out yet -- but they for sure LOOK great (which is what were talking about here)

Theres really no contest. I'm speaking passionately about this because I have went on a balls out system this year and have nothing but ugly games to play on it (except for Oblivion). And the good ones dont run well because theyre ported like ass from the 360, like DA. Oblivion looks great but its really nothing compared to where things are going and already are.

Fact of the matter is, if you have a HDTV already buying a console is a MUCH better buy for gaming than PC in terms of graphics quality. If you dont, then its up in the air because you'd be spending similar amounts on a HDTV+ Console as you would a balls out PC.

Again there are hardly, if any games to run on it..

On top of all the good looking console games coming out that are dubious in quality, there are tons of great looking AAA titles coming out that we know will look good. Can we say that for the PC? No. All you will hear on these boards is Crysis, UT2007 and Alan Wake, 2 of those 3 will be on consoles, and its quite possible Crysis will turn up there too.

I have my balls out PC because I love FPS games and FPS on a console is a joke (Sorry to all those Halo 2 players out there :p) But I don't kid myself, I know that for everything else the console is better. And as soon as I can go balls out on a HDTV and a console I will.

Theres no buying a 7900GT SLI set up and then feeling like you've got dated hardware because the 8 series comes out, and then a year later feeling the same because the 8900 series comes out, etc. Your super hardware performs worse and worse over time as new crap comes out so often and unless you keep pace and update all the time (spending tons of cash) you will only enjoy top top end performance for a year at a time. I.E. If nothing super cool comes out this year, you're screwed and you need to buy top end the next year again. It's akin to saying oh nothing good came out for PS3 this year, I gotta buy another PS3version 2.0 next year for this one hot game thats coming out!

Consoles look BETTER as time goes on, has anyone seen BLACK for PS2? It looks unbelievable. You drop 400 or 600$ once and your games look good all the time, for at least 5 years at a time, and the investment becomes sweeter and sweeter as time goes on. Sure in 5 years PC games will be likely quite ahead of the 360/PS3 in graphics, but how good does it have to get? Could you honestly complain if every game on the 360 looked as good as Alan Wake? Especially given the money saved.

Theres always something better in terms of hardware on the PC, but there isnt always something better (looking) in terms of software to match it.
 
I don't agree. There are plenty of games on PC that aren't ugly or necessarily dated. Quake 4, Doom3, Oblivion, NFSMW, NFSC, and more that look as good on the PC and play just as well as they do on the consoles. If not better.

The fact is that right now you can't run NFSMW or NFSC, or Quake 4 at 2560x1600, on console, but with the PC I surely can. I can also hook my PC up to that same HDTV and get the same results. While I generally agree with your post, I have to point out some examples where you are dead wrong.
 
It seems most often this question gets looked at from a hardware standpoint.
As some people have very aptly noted this is really more of a software/business standpoint.

MS has lets say 7 millions x-boxes in circulation. Balls studio (fictitious) knows what the 360 can do in terms of hardware and knows if it makes an awesome game many many copies will be sold since everyone will know what to expect from the game and all get the same performance.

When Balls studio wants to make a pc game (To make a profit I assume) They have to take a middle ground approach. Since they don't know what hardware 10 million people out there have they need to make a game that will run good on as many as possible while still looking good. Can you think of a worse situation to try to solve? How much ram should the user have, video card, CPU, surround sound? It gets crazy fast

Sure you make the settings adjustable to many varieties of setups can run it but in the end your shiny new 8-series will yawn as it spits out 100+FPS without breaking a sweat.

It's always better to know what you have to work with before getting involved then having to take a best guess scenario.

Capitalism as usual.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't agree. There are plenty of games on PC that aren't ugly or necessarily dated. Quake 4, Doom3, Oblivion, NFSMW, NFSC, and more that look as good on the PC and play just as well as they do on the consoles. If not better.

The fact is that right now you can't run NFSMW or NFSC, or Quake 4 at 2560x1600, on console, but with the PC I surely can. I can also hook my PC up to that same HDTV and get the same results. While I generally agree with your post, I have to point out some examples where you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't consider Quake4, Doom3, NFS to look really that good. I mean in context of course. Doom3/Quake4 ran great on my 6800GT years ago. It's really not the same thing. I mean just take a look at a bunch of 360 or PS3 titles, they are distinctly more high quality in graphics. I can't speak for resolution of course, but technically speaking they are much more nicer looking than Doom3 or Quake4. Not to mention almost (if not all) these games are available on these consoles as well. No you cant play at 2560x1600 but im not sure that was the topic of discussion here. Would you really have anything to complain about on a 50" 1080p TV? Or a 46" 720p tv? (In terms of resolution with the same games)

Also consider how much money you'd have to spend and maintain spending to afford to continue to game at max settings at such extreme resolutions. It's in these cases in particular where its even less desirable to have a PC.

Consider also the fact given the rise in development costs its quite likely all the great looking games we'll be getting will be multiplatform (publishers want to make the most of their investments), primarily developed on 360, and poorly optimized on the PC. PC exclusives are going to be rare outside of RTS games and a few niche genres, even MMOs are coming to consoles. Consoles are just a better buy and they look just as good more consistently. Look at Neverwinter Nights 2. Its a NEW game that doesn't look better than most crappy 360 titles, yet it runs like ass even on a 8800GTX. Some guy in the GTS or GTX? thread on NVIDIA boards here mentioned dipping to 10fps in NWN2. Performance is hardly consistent with the graphics on PC games.And many times our ports of good looking 360 titles actually look worse. GRAW and Rainbow Six Vegas are good examples. Double Agent looks just as good if not better but the performance is abysmal regardless of what hardware you're on.

Fact of the matter the people who buy the "GTX" series of cards, top end flagship cards is small as it is. But you NEED those kinds of cards to run the most beautiful of PC games at settings that match or exceed what the 360 can do for 400$. Some guy who buys a single 8800GTS isnt gonna be running Crysis at max settings I'll tell you that much. You have to dive into the big boys pool, and often, to maintain that potential for beauty on the PC, and that beauty is so rare its really just not worth it. And its also not representative of a majority of PC gamers' experience.

Most 'advanced' gamers are likely in the mid range crowd, the "GT" crowd so to speak. They can expect to run some older games at max settings and the newest ones at medium quality, now take Alan Wake when it comes out, crank it down to medium and then compare it to Alan Wake on the 360. Thats more of a fair comparison. Technical capabilities aren't really relevant if they aren't being tapped.The point is moot. Some guy can buy a 360 and a PS3 for less than a single balls out gaming rig, and get a slew of gorgeous titles in a single year (with several years more to come, and only a single investment), whereas a PC gamer is looking forward to maybe 1 or 2 a year, and then a bunch of ports from the console section, which usually turn out worse. Look at the 6800 Ultra, that was the Shader Model 3 card, did SM3 games come out? No. When they did the 6800 Ultra was too slow to run em at max settings despite it being the flagship card when it came out.

They throw muscle at the problem instead of improving the development process. So yes, its theoretically possible, we get tons of beastly tech, for tons of money spent, but hardly any games to show for it.

This is what a shitty game on the X360 looks like:
sonic-the-hedgehog-20060926021643374.jpg


This is what a shitty PC game looks like:
gothic-iii-20061128025758713.jpg
 
Dan_D said:
Does the 360 version of NFC look better than it does on PS3? I've never read the article you mentioned, which is why I asked.
Click to expand...

Textures are more blurred, every comparison showed the PS3 being too bright. Don't know if thats the actual situation or gamespots fault. I'll try to find the link.
 
My biggest gripe with console games is the trendy pseudo-anime trash nonsense that the publishers spit out in seemingly endless volumes. And the never-ending string of Mario games. I appreciate what the damn plumber did for gaming in general, but i think 487 games is pushing it a bit too far.
 
Mark_Warner said:
My biggest gripe with console games is the trendy pseudo-anime trash nonsense that the publishers spit out in seemingly endless volumes. And the never-ending string of Mario games. I appreciate what the damn plumber did for gaming in general, but i think 487 games is pushing it a bit too far.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not to mention that I'm sick of the rice rocket, teenage asshat racing games.
 
Mark_Warner said:
My biggest gripe with console games is the trendy pseudo-anime trash nonsense that the publishers spit out in seemingly endless volumes. And the never-ending string of Mario games. I appreciate what the damn plumber did for gaming in general, but i think 487 games is pushing it a bit too far.
Click to expand...

For sure :D HDR seems to be a nice cover up for some shitty AA and texturing.
 
HDR isnt a coverup, bloom is :p

Zelda is a good example, if they took bloom out of Twilight Princess it would look pretty bad I think.

Bloom seems to be used to cover up a lot of ugliness, HDR is similar but not as good at it. Doesn't wash things out as much :p
 
Svengali said:
I don't consider Quake4, Doom3, NFS to look really that good. I mean in context of course. Doom3/Quake4 ran great on my 6800GT years ago. It's really not the same thing. I mean just take a look at a bunch of 360 or PS3 titles, they are distinctly more high quality in graphics. I can't speak for resolution of course, but technically speaking they are much more nicer looking than Doom3 or Quake4. Not to mention almost (if not all) these games are available on these consoles as well. No you cant play at 2560x1600 but im not sure that was the topic of discussion here. Would you really have anything to complain about on a 50" 1080p TV? Or a 46" 720p tv? (In terms of resolution with the same games)

Also consider how much money you'd have to spend and maintain spending to afford to continue to game at max settings at such extreme resolutions. It's in these cases in particular where its even less desirable to have a PC.

Consider also the fact given the rise in development costs its quite likely all the great looking games we'll be getting will be multiplatform (publishers want to make the most of their investments), primarily developed on 360, and poorly optimized on the PC. PC exclusives are going to be rare outside of RTS games and a few niche genres, even MMOs are coming to consoles. Consoles are just a better buy and they look just as good more consistently. Look at Neverwinter Nights 2. Its a NEW game that doesn't look better than most crappy 360 titles, yet it runs like ass even on a 8800GTX. Some guy in the GTS or GTX? thread on NVIDIA boards here mentioned dipping to 10fps in NWN2. Performance is hardly consistent with the graphics on PC games.And many times our ports of good looking 360 titles actually look worse. GRAW and Rainbow Six Vegas are good examples. Double Agent looks just as good if not better but the performance is abysmal regardless of what hardware you're on.

Fact of the matter the people who buy the "GTX" series of cards, top end flagship cards is small as it is. But you NEED those kinds of cards to run the most beautiful of PC games at settings that match or exceed what the 360 can do for 400$. Some guy who buys a single 8800GTS isnt gonna be running Crysis at max settings I'll tell you that much. You have to dive into the big boys pool, and often, to maintain that potential for beauty on the PC, and that beauty is so rare its really just not worth it. And its also not representative of a majority of PC gamers' experience.

Most 'advanced' gamers are likely in the mid range crowd, the "GT" crowd so to speak. They can expect to run some older games at max settings and the newest ones at medium quality, now take Alan Wake when it comes out, crank it down to medium and then compare it to Alan Wake on the 360. Thats more of a fair comparison. Technical capabilities aren't really relevant if they aren't being tapped.The point is moot. Some guy can buy a 360 and a PS3 for less than a single balls out gaming rig, and get a slew of gorgeous titles in a single year (with several years more to come, and only a single investment), whereas a PC gamer is looking forward to maybe 1 or 2 a year, and then a bunch of ports from the console section, which usually turn out worse. Look at the 6800 Ultra, that was the Shader Model 3 card, did SM3 games come out? No. When they did the 6800 Ultra was too slow to run em at max settings despite it being the flagship card when it came out.

They throw muscle at the problem instead of improving the development process. So yes, its theoretically possible, we get tons of beastly tech, for tons of money spent, but hardly any games to show for it.

This is what a shitty game on the X360 looks like:

This is what a shitty PC game looks like:
Click to expand...
Pics removed for space.

Your visual examples don't really carry your point very well. The X360 pic shows a character with extremely basic shading and texturing, cartoonish and simplistic. No bump-mapping or flesh-textures, no detailed clothing, etc., against a backdrop of lo-res wall textures. What's so impressive? The glow effect? The fur collar?

Meanwhile the PC game has a mix of different humans and animals, fire, wooden shingles, trees, etc. etc. that do a nice job of looking realistic. The only cheesy visual I see in that scene is the ground texture.

So what exactly do the pics prove from your perspective?
 
Here we go. Pics posted by Bobrownik. Bad anti-alaising 9if any) and washed out textures; PS3.
PS3
ps3vs360056.jpg

360
ps3vs360055.jpg


Rest of the story @ gamespot
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Pics removed for space.

Your visual examples don't really carry your point very well. The X360 pic shows a character with extremely basic shading and texturing, cartoonish and simplistic. No bump-mapping or flesh-textures, no detailed clothing, etc., against a backdrop of lo-res wall textures. What's so impressive? The glow effect? The fur collar?

Meanwhile the PC game has a mix of different humans and animals, fire, wooden shingles, trees, etc. etc. that do a nice job of looking realistic. The only cheesy visual I see in that scene is the ground texture.

So what exactly do the pics prove from your perspective?
Click to expand...

It all looks ugly as a whole? Maybe that wasnt the best example but Gothic 3 looks like crap, thats not what I bought a 7900GT SLI for. Looks old and dated.
 
Dan_D said:
Agreed. Not to mention that I'm sick of the rice rocket, teenage asshat racing games.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. Back in the day, Need For Speed was about fast cars that were fast without having to waste half of the single player experience buying upgrades and tweaking them til kingdom come. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Italdesign, McLaren, Saleen, etc. Purpose built fast cars. Not a bunch of Civics and Cobalts. Gah. Makes me barf.
 
damn it I own a 21 inch monitor and I HATE when people post huge ass pictures in threads that arent even pic threads, no way am I going to scroll left and right every 5 seconds to read the whole thread.

:rolleyes:
 
Hulk said:
damn it I own a 21 inch monitor and I HATE when people post huge ass pictures in threads that arent even pic threads, no way am I going to scroll left and right every 5 seconds to read the whole thread.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Get a bigger monitor. That pic is only 1280x1024. :D
 
People shouldn't post large images in threads alongside text regardless of what kind of monitors people own. Readability goes down as line length increases. By reducing my browser size, I can improve the readability on the forums, but only if there aren't ridiculously large image files ballooning the table widths.

In any case, the Gamespot article linked to above is interesting.
 
I am on a crappy 17" CRT at work, so I can see where you are coming from but a 21" CRT should be capable of doing 1280x1024 comfortably and be easy to read for almost anyone unless your vision is on the poorer side.

On my other monitors at home, which do 2560x1600, 1600x1200 and 1650x1080, this problem of course wouldn't normally occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top