» Login to reply to this

Droniac (114)     Feb 18, 2007 - 08:11 am

I have to disagree with you, for the most part anyway. Yes, every piece of software a console owner purchases is running the best the system can handle. No, that is not necessarily - or even usually - full detail. A vast amount of console games nowadays is released on the PC as well - and the PC always has the high, very high & ultra high detail options that consoles lack. Consoles are essentially stuck in medium detail. As such, you're never getting the most out of your game, if you're really that interested in graphics. Commenting on Crysis right now is impossible, because there's no method of testing it on your PC. That said: I wouldn't be surprised if a PC from 2004 (such as my own) were to be able to run Crysis in mediocre detail, with most of your effects enabled. If only for the fact that a PC from 2004 can still run nearly every modern game in high detail. Yes after 5 years you'll have to lower settings, but I already explained that when compared to console gaming (which is stuck with medium to low detail permanently) that's not so bad, in the article above. I vastly prefer being able to choose my own performance and visual detail in any game, rather than getting no say in the matter at all. That's one of PC gaming's strong points, especially for gamers like myself who are interested in competitive play and don't much care for the amount of detail on a leaf in an intense multiplayer fight. Additionally, in a straight out comparison, it's only fair to assume that one uses a PC to the PS3's limits - which means lowering settings to PS3 level as well. A game 5 years from now at medium detail will still look significantly better than a game right now at full detail, especially with the system I assembled because it supports future technologies: DirectX 10. Yes, one could argue about how comparing the specs is slightly unfair. Although it has to be mentioned that recent consoles are more media-centers & PC-like than ever - and their hardware resembles that. And in fact, the PS3 does run other things behind the games. That's why a significant portion of it's RAM (64 MB of it's mere 256 MB) is dedicated to the cross media bar, at all times. I liked your bit of commentary about playing a game at it's best possible quality. Yes, if you want to do that then you'll have to upgrade in those 5 years time. But how many PC gamers are like that really? Very few, the ones I do know I can count on one hand... You've also managed to forget about overclocking. Most gamers who are all about graphics, will have overclocked PCs - because it's much less expensive (and equally effective as) than upgrading. All you need is some nice cooling units (not too expensive nowadays) and some knowledge of PCs - et voila: your PC has just doubled it's performance. It's something you won't see happening with a PS3, if only for the fact you can't even change your visual detail in games so there's really no point - games will remain roughly equally ugly/beautiful during it's lifetime. Then there's another interesting factor to PS3 gaming. You see, if you want to get the best out of your PS3 games, then you'll have to dig much deeper into your wallet than merely purchasing a PS3 and some games. The PS3 now comes with some amazing HD-TV support - so if you want to get everything out of it, then prepare to fork over well in excess of 1000 US Dollars for a good HD-TV that supports the PS3's technology fully. By contrast: you can get the very best of the best out of a 15" CRT monitor from the last century in any PC game. And even if you want optimal visual quality at decent resolutions, a mere 200 US dollars is enough for a more than viable 19" TFT monitor. A further note on PC component pricing: It's currently actually a rather inexpensive time to be upgrading your PC. But if you want to upgrade, then you're better off waiting a couple of months for the new Intel processors and ATi/Nvidia cards to release. That aught to further decrease the amount of money you have to shell out for some incredibly good hardware. The PC I assembled in the article could well drop 100-200 euro in price - and if you replace the video card by one of Nvidia's upcoming budget DX10 cards then you'll be looking at even lower price tags. » Login to reply to this  suprez (1)   Nov 25, 2007 - 09:19 am | Edited on Nov 25, 2007 - 09:24 am You're missing a point.It's more than 480 Because a console lifespan is much longer. Each 6 month PC video game and technology move foward .A real gamer might need to upgrade 2-3 time in a 6 years span.That NOT considering we have to upgrade any part that might broke. Console has the years pass . graphic become better has video game company try to find the best way possible to suck up the most they can out of the console spec.They don't try that hard for PC For exemple Halo 2 .. Which require close to 3.0 GHZ could run well on a 4 years old X BOX. For exemple Gears of War 2 .. Might release on the same console(360) in 4 years.But you won't be able to run GOW2 on the same system you used for GOW1.THus upgrading your PC. Your 480 is completly false.If a real gamer want to keep up with the technology.Say 4-5 X more expensive during the lifespan of that console. That why PC GAMING it's EXPENSIVE and not for EVERYONE.Especialy when a single video card can be more expensive than the most expensive console and be discontinued in 2-3 years. Good day » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

imfagentsamfisher (315)   Feb 12, 2007 - 04:01 pm | Edited on Feb 12, 2007 - 04:03 pm

Disregard this second post; screwed up with the comment posting. » Login to reply to this

imfagentsamfisher (315)   Feb 12, 2007 - 03:57 pm

This is purely subjective, but speaking personally I would disagree with that. As a PC gamer of several years, I've found that there are many good, even great, RPGs and adventure games to be found on the PC, as many if not more than the PS3. Of course, if your RPG fix comes in the form of Final Fantasy-style games, or your adventures in the form of Jak and Daxter-style games then yeah, PS3 would be better for that. But for an overall better experience (especially for roleplaying), I've found that the PC tends to be of better quality, not to mention a fair bit cheaper. (Sam & Max, one of the best PC-exclusive adventure series, especially in recent times, costs about as much as movie ticket per "episode".) Just my opinion on that. » Login to reply to this  Droniac (114)    Feb 12, 2007 - 05:00 pm I'd have to agree with imfagentsamfisher here. I tend to prefer PC RPGs (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Sacred) and Adventures (Monkey Island games, Sam&Max) over those found on consoles myself. There certainly are games that just play a lot better on consoles than on PCs, such as sports games, racing games, most flying games & beat 'em up games. Granted, I'm not really a fan of any of those so the choice for me is simple: I stick with the platform that offers me the games I like - and to this day that platform remains the PC. The choice of your platform doesn't just depend on it's pure power and cost, it also depends on your gameplay preferences. If you like to play complex and difficult games - then you'll probably tend to stick to PC gaming. If you like accessible and fast games - then you'll likely be more of a console fan. Similarly your genre preferences aught to way heavily as well... e.g.: an RTS gamer would be unlikely to pick up a console, whereas someone who loves playing platform games probably wouldn't play games on his/her PC. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

» Note: You need to be logged in to write a comment!