Gaming Is Console Gaming Dying?

Play PC games with hardware specs below the minimum? Sure you can, and the game will suffer accordingly. Even to the point of not being able to played at all! Using "your" logic, if the developer has enough sense to put "recommended specs" on the box, then he has enough sense to put "minimum specs" on the box, and gamers should have enough sense to use them.

This is more hypocrisy! At first you said that the "minimum spec" is not put there to say "this is how the game should look"! But NOW you're saying that the "recommended spec" is put there to say "this is how the game should look"! BS! It's NOT pointless to talk about anything below "recommended" because not all PC games have recommended specs printed on the box! Some have minimum only, with the word "or better" printed next to the spec! Also people have minimum spec PCs! Thanks to your friend, he just blew your whole argument straight out of he water. His PC reads EXACTLY like the back of the box on MW2 and Dragon Age, almost to the letter! There "are" no "recommended specs" for him to use, he must play with what he's got...minimum specs! So yes, the quality suffers, and is below console standards and capabilities! Thanks friend!!

All PS3s are built the same and have the same capabilities, all PCs do not. Your "friend" has 2 PCs displayed, both with different builds and capabilities and thus will produce different visuals. The PS3 on the other is the same and will produce the same visuals.

So let me get this straight, you want to "not count" bad PC visuals and capabilities, but "do" count the good PC visuals and capabilities..."on better settings"? Talk about a smoke screen effect! Your blowing smoke. This is the kind of double standard that has plagued this whole debate, and has proven my point. The game will look how it looks on the settings of the individual PC it's on! it's always "been" that way, and it will always "be" that way. You want to just use the same settings for everybody and say that this is how ALL PC games look, and it's just not true. Its fantasy, fiction, and a lie!!

REALLY?!! Then what are you talking about? you just contradicted yourself! Why are we even having this conversation then?

But that is what just happened isn't it?!! Fake 30" monitors, with fake 2500x1600 res! This is a common practice in these types of debates. Dream PC specs with expensive highend hardware, until we talk price. then you want to ditch that hardware and say that you built your PC for $50! Bottom line is that I'm right! It ALL depends on the PC's build, and all PCs are not the same!

There is no "might" about it, I AM right! The cost of diminishing returns is there with minimal increase at maximum price, rebranded and rehashed cards, with finding out SLI and Misfire don't work, games have more bugs than a roach motel, playing DX9 games with a $500 DX10 card, ect. It's all there. DX10 is a joke! I bring it up because NOT ONE DAMN GAME EXISTS AFTER 4YRS!! If it does then show me. I've put this challenge out now since forever, and NO PC gamer can prove me wrong! Name 1 damn DX10 game, no "modes", "no features", the whole damn game! I don't hate PC gaming, I am a PC gamer. I purchased highend hardware at the time, built the PC, purchased AOC (Age of Conan), and was like wtf?!! This is it? PC gaming is overhyped, over priced and overrated. The hardware manufacurers are ripping off the gamers and the developers have jumped completely overboard! They are not, and WILL not help the PC realize it's potential. It is what it is.

How you choose tyo upgrade is on you (isn't that what you said?). But as the games get more intense, your machine's performance will degrade, just like your friends minimum spec PC. But the console will game on, just like the 10yr old PS2 who has outlived 2-3 generations of PCs and counting.

 

HDTVs that cost no money

So are you saying that you can just plug the PS3 into a HDTV that magically appeared from nowhere - Or will the HDTV cost money?

I would certainly imagine that the HDTV will cost more than a £75 graphics card upgrade.

"All PS3s are built the same and have the same capabilities" - They also have various output connections and various picture quality settings, such as: Standard Definition low res 480i (as well as the ideal HD options) to cater for people who may not meet the 'recommended' HDTV setup.

Now, if you are comparing an SD PS3 gamer to a HD PS3 gamer, then the HD gamer has better graphics.


Researching a multiplatform game's graphics

If, on the other hand, you own both a PC and a PS3, and you are interested in buying a new multiplatform game - you may decide to do some research on the internet to find out which platform has the best graphics.

It would be pointless if a comparison website 'ONLY' showed you how the PS3 version looked on an SD output to a CRT TV because everyone does not have a HDTV.

It would not answer your question about which platform does this particular game look best on. So you would expect to see the PC version being played by a PC that at least met the 'Recommended' Specs.

Then you might show how it looks on different resolutions and various levels of reduced quality.

So, the U L T I M A T E Q U E S T I O N about which platform has the best killer graphics: the answer is the PC.


What to do if 'Recommended Specs' are not printed on the back of the PC game cover

First, Don't Panic !

The next step should be fairly simple: Read 'all' the information provided.

It may list some minimum specs and then say "or higher" ( scratches head )

'Higher' implies that the specs listed on the box may give you reduced quality.

So a higher hardware spec PC may allow me to play the game at its 'optimal' settings. Oh, I see.

But what if the game publisher has listed something different, such as "System Requirements", then it reads: "Increased performance will be noticed on more powerful systems" ? ( scratces head again )

Oh, it follows the same kind of logic as the first example.

What if we have a worst case scenario where absolutely nothing is written on the back of the game cover?

Let me see ... You can contact the publisher, or check their website and maybe try their demo. What you may discover is that all AAA PC games have multiple levels of graphics scalability. You may find that your PC is around the minimum level, medium level or maximum level.

What does "Maximum level" mean?

It means you are playing the game on it's highest settings.

Oh, I've heard many PC gamers use the term "Maxed out" a few times, I guess what they mean is that they are playing the game how the game's developers originally intended the game to look, but they also included 'reduced' quality levels for other specs to give other people the chance to play the game on their machines.


Showcasing 10 year old graphics in the year 2010

If the PS2's graphics are what you are holding up as proof of consoles "out-gaming" PCs, then you must be trying to break the world record for the best stand-up comedy jokes.

The PS2 was an excellent console, no doubt. But to use it in your context as a weapon against upgrading to the PS3 (which replaced a 6 year old PS2 nearly 4 years ago) or against upgrading to modern PCs is not even funny.

 

saying "the 10yr old PS2 has outlived and out gamed it's 10yr old PC counterpart" = the same thing as Showcasing 10 year old graphics in the year 2010

Just in case you haven't noticed yet.

It means the same thing.

What if, for arguments sake, games were still being made for the PS2 in another 30 years time? Would you then brag that the PS2 has 'outlived and out gamed it's 40yr old PC counterpart' ?

Meanwhile, the ' R E A L S H O W C A S E ' will be modern technology.

The same applies here in 2010.

You are desperately trying to hold up the 10 year life of the PS2 in this day and age as some kind of highly relevant and valuable point in this discussion when its upgrade replacement, the PS3, came out years ago and many PC gamers have also upgraded their PCs at least once in 10 years.

Then after strangely mentioning a 10 year old console, your rant continues on trying to prove that consoles have better graphics than PCs. ? ! ?


Understanding how it's possible someone can be gaming on a 'standard def TV' when CRT TV's are no longer for sale

First, not all flat screens sold 4+ years ago were HD.

Second, you don't need to buy a 'new' CRT in order to be gaming on it now. Which is why I used the example of a person hooking up their PS3 to a 10 year old CRT (that they already had).

Third, altho HDTVs may make up the bulk of modern purchases, there are still plenty of homes that still don't have a HDTV in every room of the house yet. So a kid may decide he wants to game in his bedroom, but has to connect his PS3 to a standard definition TV set and game at 480i.

I should not even have to explain any of the above to you.

This is another perfect example of how you fail to address any of the points that you are responding to. You instead choose to argue about pointless things or even nit pick about a particular word someone used and then ignorantly try to gather it to add to your failing rant.


What to do if "The developer has NO IDEA how a game will "look" on your machine"

Don't worry, it does not mean the game has not been developed with scalability. So if you still want to know which platform the game will look best on, you may need to do some research about what type of specs people are using to max out the game without reduced settings.

Most likely, you will find that the PC version on a £75 graphics card has the best graphics compared to other platforms.

Then you can make an informed decision about what your own specs are and whether or not you are at the 'recommended' level. ( scratches head )

"But what does it mean if my own PC easily maxes out the game, but my friend's PC only plays on minimal settings? Does it mean that my own superior PC graphics are no longer destroying the consoles?

No. It doesn't cancel out the fact. It simply means that your friend has reduced quality on HIS machine, but your PC is living proof that the PC version of this multiplatform game looks the best.

"Oh, so my friend's personal experience and the other person across the road do not deny the ultimate facts?"

No.

So now you are now aware of which platform looks the best: PC.


New Flaw: Trying to highlight the low 'Recommended Specs' of some games that were not even designed with high hardware-taxing graphics - and then getting excited about it

All games that have low 'Recommended' specs have low specs for a reason.

We also talk about multiplatform games for a reason: So you can find out that COD Modern Warfare 2 looks better on the PC; and the 360 looks better than the PS3.

All the games you are digging up with low recommended requirements are either PC exclusives or multiplatform games that ALSO do not tax the hardware of the consoles either.

You are acting as if the 'exact same' game on a PS3, such as Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivian, will max out the PS3's hardware.

Then you are comparing the full console specs with the low recommended PC specs.

By the way, this still looked better on the PC: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-elder-scrolls/18458

Thanks.

 

Graphically the Console is still inferior, I see no ability to include AA filters or AF filters, that alone should indicate to you the weakness of the consoles, regardless of specs or not.

Oh and there is no such thing as a 1080p console, they all generate their images at either 1280x720 or 1156x612(something like that) and upscale it.

Okay, let's compare another console/PC game:

Elder Scrolls Oblivion: With my PC..avg 50fps with 4xAA and 8xAF and a Qarl's Texture pack(makes textures 4096x4096 all of them instead of 1024x1024 or smaller) @ 1280x1024.

With the PS3: avg 30-40fps inside, avg 24fps outside, no AA, no AF regular textures, @ 1156x???.
With the Xbox360: Same as PS3 except @ 1280x720(I think).

Yes, PC's are definitively being destroyed by the consoles..

 

QUOTE=tron]

saying "the 10yr old PS2 has outlived and out gamed it's 10yr old PC counterpart" = the same thing as Showcasing 10 year old graphics in the year 2010

Just in case you haven't noticed yet.

It means the same thing.[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. It means exactly what I said it meant. It has out lived and out gamed it's 10yr old PC counterpart. Nobody said anything about graphics. They're "still" making games for the 10yr old console, in 2010. They're not for the 10yr old PC...GET OVER IT!!

If the PS2 was still relevent 30yrs from now yep, absolutely! Everyone will be saying that.

There is no desperation here at all, why should there be? The PS2 is "still" here in all it's form, and "still" gaming! That can't be said about it's 10yr old PC counterpart, who died multiple deaths along time ago. Look, you're in the presence of greatness fool, BOW DOWN! Here is what you don't understand, this is the console that has outlived multiple generations of CPUs, GPUs, RAM modules, Hard Drives, motherboards, OSes, DX6, 7, 8, 9, *cough*10*cough*, and now DX11. It brought video gaming mainstream, killed Sega, b!tch slapped Nintendo, started the PC's downfall, and brought M$ into the game! That last move alone changed gaming they way we knew it. The PS2 has sold well over 200 million units and counting, broke records, and set standards. It is the most prolific console, or piece of video gaming hardware ever created...RECOGNIZE!!

I did a good job of it too. Thanks friend!

Oh I get it! Since there are plenty of homes that don't have HDTVs in every room the HDTV doesn't count anymore?!! Why the hell would you need a HDTV set in every room?

Wow! You've proved yourself to be quite the hypocrite! Changing your agrument yet again and again are you!! So no "minimum specs" because the consoles destroy those. Now no more "recommended specs", after "YOU" said they were how the game was suppose to look, "you" said that, over and over and over! Now that the console destroyed those, only "maxed out specs" are allowed! So anyone who doesn't have "maxed out specs" doesn't count, only the PC with "maxed out specs" does!! Bwahahah!!

Of course they're low for a reason, the PCs can't handle the games!

It seems that IGN.com doesn't agree with you...and so do I! The console wins!

Xbox 360/PS3
10 Graphics
What was already an impressive graphical engine has only improved over the last two years. More effects, grander environments, and a truly spectacular overall visual offering.

PC
9.5 Graphics
What was already an impressive graphical engine has only improved over the last two years. We’ve seen better on PC, but it’s a beautiful package to say the least.[/QUOTE]

Well, trying again to change this argument to suit your needs. I told you, you're a hypocrite. Once you found out that "minimum specs" were below console standards, you whined about "recommended specs", you said this is how the developer "intended" the game to look! "You" said that!! Now that you see "recommended specs" below console standards, you're complaining about the consoles themselves! You're complaining that the console hardware isn't being "taxed" enough! Look, I don't make the damn games! I told you already that most PC games are made with specs below console standards, and that the console will look better than these PC games! You can't change the software being developed.

This is a new game!

Dead Space
For Windows XP (SP2) or Vista
2.8 GHz processor or equivalent
1 GB RAM (XP), 2 GB RAM (Vista)
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 or better (7300, 7600 GS, and 8500 are below minimum system requirements)
ATI X1600 Pro or better (X1300, X1300 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)
256MB Video Card and Shader Model 3.0 required
The latest version of DirectX 9.0c
At least 7.5GB of hard drive space for installation, plus additional space for saved games.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/913/913954p1.html

 

My GOD this debate is funny.

Warrior, first of all, you're trying to prove that PC's are inferior by saying modern games (Aion & Dead Space spring to mind) can be played on older Hardware. Right, lets look at dead space. The PC hardware you need for MINIMUM requirements has been around since April 2004 (that's the Geforce 6800 release date, all the other hardware was readily available around that time also). Now, if you had a CONSOLE bought at that time, You'd have an XBox or PS2..... can you even play Dead Space on either of those? As for Aion, well, surely it's a GOOD thing that PC developers are making a game that can be played on older PC's? After all, you already tried to prove the consoles superiority by saying games are still being made for the PS2. Unless of course, you're trying to say that it's fine to make games for a 10 year old console, but bad to make games for an older PC. Of course, that's just hypocrisy & double standards

The whole DX10 argument, yes, DX10 games are available. Running a game in DX10 mode on the appropriate hardware will make the game look better than ANYTHING a console has to offer. Of course, you don't NEED the hardware to run the game. It's all down to the users choice whether or not they want to upgrade. Of course that's something you DONT get on any console, see above paragraph about Dead Space. If I wanted to play the game on a PC I purchased in 2004, I could. If I wanted to play it on a console I purchased in 2004, I'd be trying to run it on a PS2 or XBox, and wouldn't be able to. It's all about consumer choice. Consumer choice is good.

MW2 does NOT have better graphics on any console just coz IGN rated it higher. The reason it's been given a 10 on the 360 is because it's being compared to other 360 games. On the PC, it's being compared to other PC games, which, to quote IGN "We've seen better on the PC". Go read IGN's head to head article, that gives an actual side by side comparison. Although, thanks for proving that a gaming PC can out-do a 360 graphically.

Before you start arguing about what my PC can do, It's a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo, Geforce 8800GTS, 2 GB Ram, 22" Widescreen monitor. A touch over 3 years old, plays every game currently available at my moniters native resoloution in high detail. There's a couple I can't max out, Crysis & STALKER Clear Sky spring to mind, but this generation of console will never come close to those games graphically anyway. If I really wanted to, I could compare games side by side, with my 360 hooked up to a CRT widecreen television (because I don't have a HDTV in ANY room in my house, pointless investment for me right now since I don't watch TV, don't have a Blu-Ray player and I ain't buying one just to get better graphics on my 360, which I hardly use for gaming). The only thing I actually use my 360 for these days is streaming movies from my PC. In that respect, it's a useful little machine!

You do make a good point about the PS2 though, it was, and is a fantastic gaming machine. I still use my PS2 regularly while my 360 and Wii gather dust in the corner.

I really don't see what all the agression is about on your part Warrior, this is primarily a PC site, primarily of PC enthusiasts. Many people here enjoy console gaming as well, but most people on here are more interested in PC's, and you ain't gonna change that by coming on here ranting and raving about how much you prefer consoles and then trying to prove that your opinion is somehow better than everyone elses. It looks like you're just trolling to wind people up.

Oh look, on topic point..... Is Console gaming dying? I doubt it very much. Not in the near future anyway. The gaming market as a whole is changing. It's been happening on the PC for quite some time, retail sales are declining, digital downloads are on the up. This trend will carry over to consoles, it's already starting. The PSPGo is digital download only, current generations of consoles have digital downloads available. While this is mainly used for Indie or Retro games at the moment, I believe more and more AAA titles will become available. The next generation of consoles will probably focus more on digital downloads rather than retail sales, whether this will be a good thing is debatable, since M$ & Sony will control the digital download market on consoles.Streaming services such as Onlive are just a natural evoloution of this, I just don't think it'll really take off for another few years. When streaming games does take off, I reckon it'll be as a service available on the PC. After all, theres a huge market already. The thousands of low spec PC's & laptops which are incapable of playing modern games would be the ideal machine for services such as this to take off on. The hardware is already in peoples homes, someone just needs to take advantage of it. I'm incredibly surprised Onlive havn't tried to tap into this market first to be honest.

 

F A I L



IF you have a PC with a total graphical horse power capability of 10

AND you have a console with a total graphical horse power capability of 3

AND you have a multiplatform game with a low graphical requirement of only 1

AND the PC version of the game 'Recommends' that your PC should have a graphical horse power of only 1

THEN the game is rated only 1 on both the PC AND CONSOLE

IT is the exact same game by the same developer and the exact same multiplatform game engine.



HOWEVER, the PC version of the same game will normally have the graphical edge via the following:



Resolutions (not upscaled stuff, but true sharpness)

AA (Compare 0xAA or 2xAA to 16XQ)

AF

Framerates (compare 30fps to 60+fps)

and possibly:

PhysX

DX10 or DX11 enhancements

 

why is this thread still going

 

cause feeding trolls beats studying xD

@warrior, what games are released for 10year old PC's?

Lets see, farm Ville (you ignored that point convenently when I brought it up), Mafia wars how about any browser game on myspace/facebook/bebo or what ever is popular these days

Welcome to the forum cyberspice =)

 

It has to be said this thread is entertaining.

 

"YOU"!!

I never said that the PC was inferior. I never said that consoles were "superior", if you think iI did then prove it. The strength of the console's design has helped the PS2 out live and out game it's 10yr old PC counterpart! It's a fact that cannot be disproven! It's still gaming on the same hardware after 10yrs, the PC is considered... junk! I said the "minimum specs" were below console capabilities with alot of these PC games, and they are. This would also make the visuals below that as well. This is an indisputable fact, and once it was realized, the shrill cry came to use "recommended specs" as "these" specs were what the game was "intended" to look like! Orily?!! Here are some "recommended specs" that are below them as well too! Now what?!! "You're using old games" they said. Okay, here are some new games! "Well, those are not taxing enough"! I don't make the damn games, it's just one excuse after the other. So now it's been changed to "maxed out specs" I guess?!!! The hypocrisy continues. Bottom line is this, PC gamers just don't want to admit that the console will look better than the PC in these games, with these specs! All I've been saying is that it depends on your PC's build. Which is true, if you have the hardware and can produce the visuals then your machine will look better, if you "don't" then it "won't"! But what we have is people claimimg "phantom, vaporware" and saying this is how "my" game looks and it doesn't.

I'm not even going to go there with "DX10", it's a joke. I'm tired of talking about it. The ONLY way I'll even debate DX10 again is if someone takes up the challenge and names "1" DX10 game, just 1! Whom ever is still sticking to that notion of a game "not" being able to be made for a particular system, needs to go and re-educate themselves about what is happening around the indusrty! Ureal Engine III on the iPhone anyone?!!

I read it already and have been on IGN for years. They compared all versions and rated the 360/PS3 version higher than the PC version graphically. It's that simple. The review came down to all versions, with the very same words being used to describe each one, all they did was changed the score! "YOU" re-read it! As a matter of fact read the whole review!

I don't care what your PC can do, it's about saying that ALL PC games look better than console games ALL the time...it's not true! I've proven that.

Aggression? What aggression? I'm stating my points as forcfully as anbody else! I don't care what you prefer. I don't care what you game on. I don't care what kind of PC you have either. But what I'm not gonna do is let you lie to me about some phantom, vaporware hardware that you claim to have, do not own, but claim the abilities of. I'm not gonna just "except that "ALL" PC games look better than "ALL" console games just because their played on a PC! This clearly is not the case, and I've proven that, time and again. I'm also not going ignore all of the problems asscociated with PC gaming because it's too embarrasing for PC gamers to hear, simply because they're too busy trying to put up some kind of front to console gamers. You can forget that! I have a gaming PC, I can max out all of my games, I know that no matter what, WoW is gonna look like ****! It's gonna look worse than 90% of all console games out there... AND IT'S PLAYED ON A PC!

Console gaming isn't going anywhere. With that said, the Wii is in trouble! Capcom already said some harsh things about it, and said their very "survival" depends on the 360 and PS3! OnLive is impressive, but until more is known...epic fail here! First, it's a console, and anyone who has been through the console wars knows that you need to have a world wide launch, be cheap, have exclusives, and have the games. I don't see any of that. I don't see M$, Sony, Nintendo or even Valve signing on! Look at their partners, where are these companies? Valve owns 90% of the digital download market, this is direct competition! Gamestop already threatend not to carry MW2 if Valve released on the same day! They won. It's going to get nasty. I don't see it for OnLive. Wait a minute "thousands of low spec PC's & laptops which are incapable of playing modern games"? I thought these didn't exist?

 

It is indeed

 

I think the unspoken fear is that if we leave him to his own devices he will mistakenly conclude he's right.

 

It looks more like care in the community.