Ok I had a discussion with a friend about the xbox 360 and a high tech pc. Wich system gives the best graphic u can get from a game at the moment? I argued for the 360 and my friend for the pc. So what's your thoughts?
both are similar. I still give the edge to the 360 though. Only different is a PC has endless capabilities...upgrades and whatnot. 360 is just pretty much the 360. Only thing it can do, is what its meant to do right out of the box.
I'd say PC to be honest both Oblivion and Marvel Ultimate Alliance look better on a *top of the line* PC right now. that may have to do with the fact that you can run at higher resolutions on the PCs I've seen them on. 1280x720 (720p for the xbox360) is still kinda low
If you're talking about a PC that costs the same as the Xbox 360, then the Xbox will look better. If you're willing to shell out the money though, there's no doubt the PC looks better.
The PC gives the best graphics, and is able to move with the times. I have been making video games for more than 20 years, and the consoles are just now starting to catch up to the PC, and in reality, are not there yet. For instance I play BF1942 at 1600x1200 32bit....and none of the consoles/HDTVs can handle that, and that game came out 5 years ago. DD
You're asking for a comparison between a sports car engine and a jet engine. PCs have better graphics if you shell out the cash, and they come with a bunch of stuff that you don't need for gaming. Consoles are cheaper (well, not counting the darn PS3), and they tend to have a longer shelf life, say 5 years compared to having to upgrade your PC every 2 years.
Eh...I would like to add that while the top-of-the-line PC is more powerful than the consoles, developers typically can't write very optimized code for that particular PC; they have to develop their game to work with PCs MUCH weaker, so they can't put in things that would drastically affect their experience (EX: ragdoll physics essential to gameplay that won't run on a 2.4GHz Pentium 4). Resolutions, AA, framerate, and a couple of other small cosmetic things can be improved, but that won't help in all cases: Spoiler Until you start seeing minimum/recommended specs that surpass the specs in consoles, I'm not sure if any PC games will really put their power advantage to great use (outside of the things I mentioned already). Crysis is probably the game that demands the highest specs, and it recommends hardware that is about equal (maybe even less powerful) than what is in the consoles (except for maybe RAM...but with XP/Vista running in the background, the RAM requirement might be about equal with what is in consoles). Gears of War is the best looking game released so far on any system IMO (by quite a bit actually), so that kind of gives you an idea of what I mean. Of course, there are strong rumors that GOW will be released on the PC, and that will probably look better than the 360 version (especially with Epic being the developer). By that time though, there will probably be console games that look better than GOW. It does seem as though this transition might occur faster than it did in the past though.
You can't buy a better gaming computer for less than $350. The best video card right now costs 600. For cost/performance a 360 is better. Even though the resolution is smaller, you can play on a larger screen at the comfort of a sofa.
huh RC??? I really don't understand the point of your entire post. are you trying to say that there are *no* PC games that look better than console games? and that no PC games whatsoever use ragdoll physics? because PC devs have to only program for the lowest denominator? maybe I'm completely mis-interpreting your post, because all of that is wrong, from how I read it. you ever heard of options/settings? a PC dev doesn't have to make a game run the exact same way on a piece o **** comp as on a top of the line one...that's what settings are for. I already named two multi-platform games that look noticeably better on a top-notch PC with the right settings/tweaks, Oblivion and Marvel Ultimate Alliance. and that's just off the top of my head, there are plenty of other examples. DaDakota is completely right in this matter usually you're smarter/more knowledgeable than this RC, but now that I think about it, don't you pretty much only post about console games and info? how much into the PC scene are you? as far as Invisible Fan's point about cost/performance, I didn't see the original poster mention cost anywhere. so I'm not counting that as a factor whatsoever. obviously a top-notch PC costs more than any console, that's not the point
He's arguing for 360s. Trying to help him get a leg up. Besides, I don't think his buddies can pony up for a computer with two 8800 GTX in SLI, 4 GB of ram, and a Quad core processor (unofficially out) all overclocked with liquid cooling. Which would probably be the fastest for 10 months or less...
go to extremes much? all you need is one 8800GTX, 2gigs of ram, and let's say a Core 2 Duo 6600 your point about it only being top-notch for 10 months is valid though...but it'll still be better than a xbox360 for 5+ years =P
Marvel and Oblivion aren't really good examples to use for this. For Marvel, they're probably using roughly the same engine across several different architectures (PSP/PS2/Xbox/Wii/360/PS3/PC). The engine is generic enough to get good results from all of them. I haven't really checked to see if the PC version is really superior to the 360 version and in what ways, but I wouldn't doubt it if they were able to get better results from the PC version than the 360 version (since the 360 is quite a bit different and more complex). Oblivion is primarily a PC-developed game that was ported to the 360 (and soon the PS3). Games available on consoles and PCs probably aren't really a good way to compare performances anyway. For every game you mention that looks better on the PC, I could probably list one that looks better on the 360. I know the PC versions of DMC, MGS, and a few other games looked/performed worse on a high-end PC (from like 2005/2006) than the PS2. Plus, IIRC, all the EA games that are on the PC are based on the current-gen engines, so they look worse than the 360 versions (as I showed with the NBA Live pic); IIRC, Ghost Recon for the PC looked worse than the 360 version of the game (although they were practically separate games to be fair). This is mostly because the code wasn't optimized for the PC. Same story for the games you mentioned, just the other way around. PC games do allow you to tweak settings, but in the end, that's not really going to take full advantage of the hardware. Think about it. The CPU could be a dual core (or even quad core) CPU from Intel or AMD (both of which do things differently), clocked anywhere from 2.0GHz to 3.0+GHz. Or it could be a single core CPU from either vendor, clocked around roughly the same speeds. The graphics card could support SM 4.0 (or DX10 basically), SM3.0, or maybe only SM2.0. It could have 768MB of RAM, 512MB of RAM, or just 256MB of RAM. The card could have a memory bandwidth of 30GB/s, or more like 50+GB/s (can't remember if these are accurate to the latest cards, but close enough). It could be from ATI or Nvidia. It could be a card from the GF 8 series (which, IIRC, supports HDR+AA, as well as many other things), the GF 7 series (which doesn't support AA+HDR) or the X1000 series (which does support AA+HDR). Or from the GF6 series (SM 3.0) or from the 9000 Radeon series (SM 2.0). Some of those cards might even be combined with one another (SLI/Crossfire), up to 4 total. I can go on and on. All of those components do things differently from each other (especially if they're from different manufacturers or generations). How can a developer take advantage of EVERY single combination, especially if some of them are only available for maybe the last 6 months of development? It can take 2-3 years to develop a game, and the basic graphics engine probably has to be done relatively early on in development. 360 developers have known since early 2005 (or maybe even earlier) that they'd have a triple-core IBM CPU (clocked at 3.2GHz), an ATI SM3.0+ GPU with unified shaders (clocked at 500 MHz IIRC), and at least 256MB of GDDR3 RAM (this actually got bumped up). They can develop specifically for that hardware and not something completely different (which they'll have to adjust their game to handle). This isn't all that new AFAIK. Around 2001 or so, there were PCs that were more powerful than the PS2, but games like Max Payne, RTCW, etc., didn't look as good as Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, etc., that came out around the same time (and the PS2 was a pain to program for). You could probably throw in some GC and Xbox games too (Rogue Squadron comes to mind definitely), although I can't remember if they had an edge over PCs or not (don't think so). Again, just give me a PC game that looks better than GOW. Or at least a game that has player models as detailed as the fighters in Fight Night Round 3 (which was released like 9 months ago IIRC). I could probably throw in MGS4 and MotorStorm since I think the 360 is capable of graphics like that (at least some day), but that would make things harder (not to mentioned a little unfair since both games are unreleased...though MS will be out in less than a month IIRC, so the game is practically done graphically speaking).
sorry RC, but I absolutely do not agree with your view in this discussion. usually I do in other general gaming threads, but not this one you use GoW as your *one* example. I'll grant you that as being incredible visually, but it's a game that only just came out like two weeks ago. before GoW, what would have been your example(s)? FNR3? sorry, it's a nice looking game but not one that outweighs every single PC game at every setting/rez. and I don't see why you wasted your time on giving all those different hardware configurations. all PC devs have to do is develop for the highest denominator and scale down from there. it's not hard to scale down with settings/options as long as you have great programmers that plan for it and have vision. and yeah, development times are long, but you make it sound like devs can't adapt on the fly. yeah it takes extra work, but hey that's their job and that brings up the important point of this discussion in my opinion. RC, I think you *seriously* underestimate the power and effect of resolutions/texture filter settings/AA. and btw, before we go any further I'm talking about good looking games in general, not sh!tty-ass games like NBA Live. anyway, when the 8800 GTX came out, did you read the reviews for it from hardware sites? let me link you a couple from the two reputable sites I like, anandtech and hardocp: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=1 http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIxOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== to get straight to the point, with the 8800 GTX you can now play games at *2560x1600*, 16x anisotropic filtering on a 30" LCD! all with maxed-out video settings for any game. I didn't list AA, cause obviously at that resolution you don't need AA...but in case you still want it, both sites said it wasn't a problem to turn on 2x AA or sometimes even 4x AA at that rez! you combine that with good looking quality games like Oblivion, Company of Heroes, Battlefield 2142, or hell even Half-Life 2, and it blows anything a console can do out of the water. I have seen this *personally* so I know. no, it's not my own system (I'm not the type to always buy the best parts that fast), but I have a friend with this card and a 30" LCD monitor and I saw it earlier this week. and believe me, 2560x1600 with 16x AF is absolutely freakin insane looking. even Half-Life 2 (Episode 1 anyway, since the original game doesn't have HDR and Color Correction support) looks better at these settings than GoW at 720p in my opinion. Oblivion and CoH were incredible like this, to say the least. even Marvel Ultimate Alliance, which is really a simplistic game, looked amazing. jaw-dropping, literally, is the term I would use in general for the whole setup and experience. both the anandtech and hardocp review articles have a page/section devoted to the very subject of 2560x1600 maxed-settings topic, and they come to the same conclusion really, if you have not seen this with your own eyes yet, I don't think you're qualified to make a final conclusion like you are doing right now. resolution, texture filtering, AA, video settings make a *big* difference. again, obviously you have to exclude cost as a factor in this discussion oh, and yeah, when you made the comment that no PC game looked better than MGS2 or Silent Hill 2 back then, that tells me all I need to know about your viewpoint on this specific subject. I was already playing Max Payne, RTCW, and other games at 1600x1200 at that time and believe me, they all looked better than any PS2 game running at 480i, MGS2 included
i really dont understand why people need such outrageously fast pcs, when the #1 pc game is World of Warcraft.
lol, good point. but this is just a fun discussion on paper we're having anyway, RC (or others), in case you don't want to read the entire review articles of anandtech and hardocp, here are some choice quotes from their conclusion sections to reinforce my own personal experience: Anandtech ---------- " Back when Sony announced the specifications of the PlayStation 3, everyone asked if it meant the end of PC gaming. After all Cell looked very strong and NVIDIA's RSX GPU had tremendous power. We asked NVIDIA how long it would take until we saw a GPU faster than the RSX. Their answer: by the time the PS3 ships. So congratulations to NVIDIA for making the PS3 obsolete before it ever shipped, as G80 is truly a beast." "A single GeForce 8800 GTX is more powerful overall than a 7900 GTX SLI configuration and even NVIDIA's mammoth Quad SLI. Although it's no longer a surprise to see a new generation of GPU outperform the previous generation in SLI, the sheer performance we're able to attain because of G80 is still breathtaking. Being able to run modern day games at 2560x1600 at the highest in-game detail settings completely changes the PC gaming experience. It's an expensive proposition, sure, but it's like no other; games just look so much better on a 30" display at 2560x1600 that it makes playing titles at 1600x1200 seem just "ok"." HardOCP -------- "The GeForce 8800 GTX is currently the best performing single-GPU video card on the market today so we had to try gaming on a Dell 30” 3007WFP LCD at 2560x1600 to see if it could push that resolution. With the GeForce 7 and ATI Radeon X1000 series you needed at least a dual-GPU solution to achieve a decent level of gameplay experience at this resolution. In fact, you really needed Quad SLI to enjoy this resolution to its fullest, *until now*." "It is simply amazing that this single-GPU video card is providing the performance in today’s games to make 2560x1600 a reality. In all the games tested you will see while we had to back off on some AA settings, we were still able to have all of the games maximum in-game settings selected, including Oblivion. By allowing that you will experience the highest visual quality experience offered by each game at this resolution."
