Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 14 Dec 2009.
Indeed, although he never actually refuted my point.
I have to say, although he does go on a bit, there are some decent points there.
*hangs head in shame smiley*
whats with this thread about console gaming dying?
nonsense i say
We've established somewhere 20 pages ago that it isn't really dying, but as things contiune to change so will it....or something like that. Now we're trying playing with a troll who is simple deluded....console games look better than pc games, consoles can do 1080p, PS2 is superior to everything cause someone made a new game for it, PC has nothing going for it (eyefinity, 3D, high res, can handle more than just gaming). Kinda fun tbh.
@Elton, he usually responds to 1-2 people a day. Hell get to you soon =)
And yes I'm arguing for the sheer fun, not to mention that of all people you should know that setting the page to 100 posts is the only way..20 pages??
Yea I know the thread is only 11 pages long and 20 sounded better than 10 xD
ok im an idiot lol. It is kinda fun I must admit lol
Why do you keep thinking of this machine like it's a graphics card?!!
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.
You don't know what your talking about. They don't "ALL" generate thgeir image at 720p or whatever. They can "upscale" standard def stuff to 1080p. I cant' get on any sites that are termed "gaming", because I'm on a "work" PC (so much for the 200 million PCs sold each year!) so I can't check anything right now.
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).
If you have the texture pack, then your scenery will look better. The notion that ALL PC games "look" better than ALL console games has been proven false already. So trying to get a download or whatever isn't going to change a thing. The point has been made. A prime example, World of Warcraft! The game looks like $h!t compared to everything on the PS2, PS3 AND 360. Case closed!
[QUOTEYes, PC's are definitively being destroyed by the consoles..[/QUOTE]
You're right, they actually are!
1) I don't think he is. I don't think anyone is?
2) Then how can you compare a console to a PC and say the console is better when you agree they can't even do 1080P?! My PC runs at twice the res of a console ... now THAT is HIGH DEF gaming!
5) PS2 ... PS2 ... PS2 ... nope, no matter how many times I repeat PS2, it just doesn't make any sense.
6) I think not.
Well, seeing as it does generate images and the Xenos/CellGPU is based off of a graphics card, I'm guessing it should have some capabilities of a graphics card..
Upscale to 1080i, yes, 1080p can't be upscaled seeing as it is native, and no console is capable of playing native 1080p..
And I'm sure PS3/360 games are rendered @ native 720p or close and then upscaled or downscaled depending on the TV.
The only problem with that comparison is that WOW is only on the PC.
Try ES4 stock. It still looks better on PC, if only because it runs smoother.
Would you like to borrow me sarcasm detector? I think mine's a new model?
I always thought that 1080p could be upscaled too but I would have to look that up. All I know is, upscaling is like getting a digital photograph and zooming into it....it looks like turd. Alot of games are rendered at even lower, especially on PS3. MW2 is a prime example, as in ghostbusters and devil may cry 4
It wont die, it never will, but like everything it will keep changin!
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. There are many ways to Rendering an image! All of the weaknesses in the PC make it neccessary to have "YOU" control what "your" PC can handle, by turning down or off certain graphical features. The type of thing would be wasteful on a console since there is no such need to do so.
This is THE most ridiculous statement you've made since claiming 2500x1600 res! What the hell do you think Blu-Ray is?!! What do you think it's capable of?!! Native 1080p! Everything must be 1080p, the the media, and the TV. All HDTVs can't upscale either, so the claim that its always upscaled is a lie! The media can be 1080p and the console can read it! You need to quit listening to your buddies.
This could be true for alot of games made to play on different TVs. Like PC monitors who have different resolution.It don't matter! Why? Because one game still looks better than the other.
What are you talking about? I never said that the console was better than the PC! I said that not all PC games look better than all console games, AND that it all depends on "your" PC's build! Then of course you have people making up specs because "their" PC is a piece. My PC can play high res games too...and?! WoW still looks like...WoW! You'rte telling me that every PC game out there looks better than GoW II, or FFXII? Yea right!
In all honesty FFXII looked like a turd. wanna pick a better game? maybe black for instance?
You know whats funny about all of this? AA isn't even available in certain PC engines and games!
Oh this is going to be sooo fun..
I don't see that as a weakness...I mean adding extra filters to a game surely serves to make it better, unless there's a special filter that worsens it, and why not get better IQ when you have a bucketload of frames anyways..
Although it's not that legit of a source, there's about 3 titles that are native 1080p.
I'm sure that the majority of games are still 720p and it's not my buddies or me making up preposterous claims..something that you have been guilty of moreso than me.
As far as i know there's 2 standard resolutions for HDTVs, most of them are 1366x768 ---> 720p/1080i. The rest are native 1920x1080. Now unless you have some eye problems, I really doubt that a 720p 32" television looks better..or a 26" HDTV. Yes, different resolutions do matter.
I never said all PC games look better, I said they can look better, and comparable ones, you can't compare apples and oranges, what you're doing is using 1 example and then blanket stating it. Try a game that is both on console and PC...wouldn't that be more fair? Or should I give you a bit more delusion?
Since when did I change the subject? The problem is that you can't grasp that PC games have the potential to look better, and by comparing 1 game to lets say a bunch of newer games is by far one of the worst comparisons I have seen this decade.
Strange interpretation of the quote: "All PC games look better than all console games". You're doing it wrong
IF everyone already knows that the PC has low graphical quality games like Solitaire, "the most played video game in the world",
AND the PC has extremely popular low-mid graphical quality games such as World Of Warcraft,
THEN absolutely nobody should expect you to wrongly interpret a quote, such as: "All PC games look better than all console games" to mean that games like Solitaire and World Of Warcraft look better than say Forza or Killzone on a console.
WHEN gamers talk about all (or most) games looking better on the PC,
IT means that they are referring to the fact that multiplatform games (including lazy console ports) usually have the graphical edge on a decent PC compared to the maximum graphical potential of the exact same game on the consoles.
SO, if you talk about comparing, the PC exclusive, World Of Warcraft to say Race Driver: GRID on the XBOX 360,
THEN it is a totally pointless comparison, and is similar to comparing apples to oranges. It would make more sense to compare GRID on the XBOX 360 to the PC version of GRID.
IF World Of Warcraft had always been a multiplatform game,
THEN the exact same game on the consoles would most likely have LESS textures and AA than the PC version.
WHEN Crysis 2 hits consoles,
IT will look very good on consoles, but will not be able to touch the graphical quality of the original Crysis maxed out on a PC.
ALSO, the new "optimized" / reduced quality of Crysis 2 will, most likely, still look better on the PC than the console versions.
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)
Framerates (compare 30fps to 60+fps)
DX10 or DX11 enhancements
Quote the bit where I said that ... seriously.
So what ARE you saying?!! Are you now saying every PC game DOESN'T look better than GoW II, or FFXII?!! Because it's either they do or they don't. You've just "implied" that you never said that they "do", so obviously you agree that they don't and with me then.
Separate names with a comma.