Support NeoGAF

[olimario]

When this generation started I was more impressed with what consoles could push than with what PCs could and recently I've felt the same way. Conker, Riddick, Doom, and Chaos Theory have shown that consoles have not only taken another leap in visuals, but tat they can still compete to some degree with PCs.


How close are they right now?
And are the only PC titles that can compete First Person Shooters? I don't think I've seen a PC racing title up to GT4 quality in visuals.


GTR
http://10tacle.com/media/screenshots/041101141057-gtr.jpg

GT4
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/article/571/571546/gran-turismo-4-20041207032353019.jpg

 

[Gantz]

Not even close. Replays don't count. GTR & GT4 looks like shit behind the wheel.

 

[Amir0x]

When this generation started I was more impressed with what consoles could push than with what PCs could and recently I've felt the same way. Conker, Riddick, Doom, and Chaos Theory have shown that consoles have not only taken another leap in visuals, but tat they can still compete to some degree with PCs.


How close are they right now?
And are the only PC titles that can compete First Person Shooters? I don't think I've seen a PC racing title up to GT4 quality in visuals.


GTR
http://10tacle.com/media/screenshots/041101141057-gtr.jpg

GT4
http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/article/571/571546/gran-turismo-4-20041207032353019.jpg

Dude, what are you talking about? Right now, PC visuals > Console visuals. Must wait until Xbox 360 and PS3 before the next "console superiority" period in which case PCs will catch up and quickly surpass it within a year or two like always.

 

[olimario]

Dude, what are you talking about? Right now, PC visuals > Console visuals. Must wait until Xbox 360 and PS3 before the next "console superiority" period in which case PCs will catch up and quickly surpass it within a year or two like always.

But how many PC titles look better than the cream of the crop console titles? Doom III? HL2? Riddick? Even then it seems pretty close.

And games where style excels like RE4 and MGS3 seem to have a better visual look than a lot of PC titles I've seen.

Not like it really matters since AOEIII looks better than anything else ever.

 

[Andrew2]

When it comes down to hardware, the PC is still considerable ahead no matter how powerful you have a console. In fact, by the time say the Xbox 2,PS3 and Revolution hit the market,the PC would be considerable ahead.

As for software, sales are flagging there isn't too much originality on the PC these. Everything is either expansion packs or simpily sequels. As of now,the only original stuff on the PC that have caught my attension have to be Children of the Nile and STALKER.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Agreed with Amirox, but the PC sector is slipping fast. More prominent devs are hopping the fence. And even with the superiority of the PC hardware, not many games are above consoles technically. There are maybe 10 games better looking than Riddick on PC, and the PC won't get graphical feats like Dead or Alive Unlimited or Panzer Dragoon Orta

****ARTWISE****

 

[Doom_Bringer]

PC's are way ahead. Just look at the multiplayer games; Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam = 64 Players max and for consoles: Halo 2, TimeSplitters 3 = 16 players max etc

 

[Amir0x]

But how many PC titles look better than the cream of the crop console titles? Doom III? HL2? Riddick? Even then it seems pretty close.

And games where style excels like RE4 and MGS3 seem to have a better visual look than a lot of PC titles I've seen.

Not like it really matters since AOEIII looks better than anything else ever.

you're talking about how developers use the power at their disposal, which is in some ways a different ballgame. you happen to like the artistic style better in console games than most PC games you've seen - that's fine, preference and what not. But technically, there are plenty of PC games that look better than console alternatives. It's not exactly an isolated event, here. Technically, consoles just can't compete with high-end PCs.

 

[AntoneM]

Clearly RE4 stacks up with Half-life 2 just look, (I can barely tell which is which) :lol

 

[Gantz]

:lol @ low res screen captures of HL2

 

[Andy787]

When this generation started I was more impressed with what consoles could push than with what PCs could and recently I've felt the same way. Conker, Riddick, Doom, and Chaos Theory have shown that consoles have not only taken another leap in visuals, but tat they can still compete to some degree with PCs.

Umm, you realize that three of your four examples look much, much better on the PC, right?

And are the only PC titles that can compete First Person Shooters? I don't think I've seen a PC racing title up to GT4 quality in visuals.

The only reason that PCs and consoles can even compete to the untrained eye is because there are simply far more, and --outside of a small few-- more talented developers on the consoles.

Personally, I prefer art style over technical prowess almost 100% of the time, but when purly discussing technical prowess, you have to be fair.

 

[AntoneM]

:lol @ low res screen captures of HL2

I to try to level the playing field, even then HL2 spanks RE4 or any console game for that matter.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Umm, you realize that three of your four examples look much, much better on the PC, right?

The only reason that PCs and consoles can even compete to the untrained eye is because there are simply far more, and --outside of a small few-- more talented developers on the consoles.

Personally, I prefer art style over technical prowess almost 100% of the time, but when purly discussing technical prowess, you have to be fair.

try again

 

[Teddman]

When it comes down to hardware, the PC is still considerable ahead no matter how powerful you have a console. In fact, by the time say the Xbox 2,PS3 and Revolution hit the market,the PC would be considerable ahead.

Nah, the Xbox 360/PS3 will have the graphical advantage for a time.

It's happened before. The N64 was slightly ahead of PC's in certain areas when it first came out.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Consoles are still hanging in there pretty good (considering the likes of Doom3 and Riddick on the xbox). Higher res textures and better screen resolution do not equal considerably better graphics. Those thinking that pc's will be ahead of next gen consoles are out of their fucking minds. It's gonna take a good 6 to 12 months before that happens.

 

[Speevy]

I haven't played any PC game released in the past 7 years, so I dunno. I prefer console games, but I have to admit that top PC games look technically better.

 

[AntoneM]

It's funny, After the DC released with the PS2 on the horizon I thought the days of PC gaming were numbered, I even made a post on GAF about it and was ridiculed. Now I play more PC games than console games, of course that could be because I was a Segabot but whose to say?

 

[teh_pwn]

Dreamcast:N64::HighEndPCsNow:CurrentConsoles

You posted bloated console images from what is apparently replay shots. Here are a few PC gameplay shots. Hi Res screen shots are hard to find...so I'll find what I can.

Not just FPS. You're forgetting RTS. Just because there aren't many other genres doesn't mean they can't be done. Don't make that fallacy. If you want to argue there's more good games for consoles, I'd agree. But I still play PCs about half the time, despite having all three consoles.


Rome Total War: (Stolen from Heavenly Sword Thread)

http://img84.exs.cx/img84/8745/rome13gd.jpg
http://img84.exs.cx/img84/5346/rome23zs.jpg


Half Life 2:

http://www.fraghunter.net/images/hl2/hl201.jpg
http://www.fraghunter.net/images/hl2/hl203.jpg
http://www.fraghunter.net/images/hl2/hl202.jpg
http://www.firingsquad.com/games/half_life_2_review/images/32.jpg
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/galleries/half_life_2_screenshots/34.jpg

Far Cry:

http://www.bjorn3d.com/Material/Images/443_NV_Far_Cry02.jpg
http://www.bjorn3d.com/Material/Images/443_NV_Far_Cry01.jpg
http://games.tiscali.cz/images/news/fctourn.jpg
http://img173.exs.cx/img173/3333/a61776dd.jpg

Age of Empires 3:
http://www.ensemblestudios.com/Age3SS0.html
http://www.ensemblestudios.com/Age3SS3.html
http://www.ensemblestudios.com/Age3SS5.html
http://www.ensemblestudios.com/Age3SS1.html

 

[Dilbert]

What the heck is that PC racing game? That looks hot...

 

[Bristow]

What the heck is that PC racing game? That looks hot...

Trackmania: Sunrise

 

[isamu]

When the PC can emulate Model 3 hardware, the PC will be ahead by a mile!

 

[Ristamar]

Graphically, the PC is still ahead and will always be ahead of the console, but the gap has significantly narrowed in recent years.

 

[Ranger X]

Technically the PC games looks better but artwise it's another story. There's no clear winner in the art dep.
Also, there's alot more hardware coming out for PC, you're not having a new videocard only after 5 years or more so it's obvious that technically the PC games wins. But on the console side, my wallet wins. And the downgrade in graphics is not enough to turn me off AT ALL. Just guess what side i stand

 

[Kleegamefan]

When it comes down to hardware, the PC is still considerable ahead no matter how powerful you have a console. In fact, by the time say the Xbox 2,PS3 and Revolution hit the market,the PC would be considerable ahead.

And with only 16GB/sec max bandwidth on the PCI-E bus, how the hell will these miracle "Xbox 360/PS3/Rev-bustin'" desktop 2006 PCs be able to access the memory required for the 100s of millions of polygons/sec and textures it will take to beat them, exactly????

It will be quite some time before you find ANY PC to host a game that "blows" away the best of the next gen games...

Don't kid yourself...

 

[Bristow]

PC's have the superior tech, but all the talent is developing for consoles.

 

[Ristamar]

Technically the PC games looks better but artwise it's another story. There's no clear winner in the art dep.

True, and console games more often have the benefit of a "polished" feel since there is standardized hardware and controls. I think dark10x might have mentioned it before, but the physics in a lot of PC games feel kinda floaty, especially in the action/shooter genre(s).

 

[AntoneM]

And with only 16GB/sec max bandwidth on the PCI-E bus, how the hell will these miracle "Xbox 360/PS3/Rev-bustin'" desktop 2006 PCs be able to access the memory required for the 100s of millions of polygons/sec and textures it will take to beat them, exactly????

It will be quite some time before you find ANY PC to host a game that "blows" away the best of the next gen games...

Don't kid yourself...

Klee, you're confusing me sicne you usually know what you're talking about. Vidcards have 256 and soon 512 MB of local DDR3 memory unless that is somehow irrelevant.

 

[teh_pwn]

I agree with Klee, this time it is different. I don't see PC games getting well ahead until 2007-2008. It largely depends on Intel/AMD to make some good chipsets/processors, but they're limiting themselves to x86.

If consoles have good support for keyboard/mice and MMORPGs/RTS/FPS, then I'd say PC gaming would die down almost completely.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Klee, you're confusing me sicne you usually know what you're talking about. Vidcards have 256 and soon 512 MB of local DDR3 memory unless that is somehow irrelevant.

Still has to communicate with the cpu and stuff, no? The data doesn't just "appear" in places.

 

[Kleegamefan]

Klee, you're confusing me sicne you usually know what you're talking about. Vidcards have 256 and soon 512 MB of local DDR3 memory unless that is somehow irrelevant.

And thats another thing....

Ok...so lets say you have a state of the art Next-gen console game.....GT5, Perfect Dark Zero and Metroid Prime Gaiden, just to throw out some names...

These games will have some of the best graphics thier platforms can provide....

SINCE, the PCI-E bus will not have sufficent bandwidth to access the data needed to give a PC game more detail, local memory will be a must....

As you say, if beating the best of next gen console graphic is the goal, then 256-512MB of local memory is a must...right??

When will we see a game that REQURES 256MB of GDDR to play it??....not in 2006, thats for damn sure....

I don't even think URE3 games will require that much memory as a minimum.....the user base of 256MB+ graphic cards will not be enough for a publisher to require a game to use that as baseline for any point in the near future....

Lets look at that kind of of hardware that would be able to rival the best next-gen console GPUs.....say, ATI R600w/512MB of ram....do you have any idea how much $$$ that will cost, even in 2006??

$500??

$600

More?

And even then, you cannot seriously think a publisher will release a game that REQUIRES this basline hardware to play a 2006 game???

Of course, there will be some serious PC hardware avaliable to buy in 2006....nobody disputes this...

PC games will be designed to be run on the least common denominator though(this has always been the case) which, in 2006 will not be ATI R600-class hardware.....of this, I am sure...

 

[Attack You]

You know what I miss? Random console-to-PC ports like Panzer Dragoon and the RE games. Man, if PD Orta ended up on PC... ::drool::

 

[Sjoerd]

Console ways are always designed for a specific processor and graphics card at a fixed resolution.

PC games have to be scalable to run on different pc's, different resolutions etc...

Personally I think that a game that's programmed for a top of the line pc(at the time of the xbox360) will look better. Sadly that's not how things work in pc land so we'll never know.