What can PS3 do...

your basing your assumptions on performance on a comparison with PC hardware
<snip>

The other major difference is that game developers are creating a game for the console... not a PC running an operating system with many different specs and things going on in the background.

So a console may be less powerful or have a lower quality graphics card in comparison, but its going to do a better job for quite sometime because thats whats its designed for. You only need to look at the previous generation to see how graphics improved over the life of the machines.
 
Show me a racing game on the PC that will outshine the graphics of GT5 or PGR4
Consoles still can hold their own in some areas.
I wasn't on about games though, everyone knows PC lacks racers. I was talking about graphics and features. For that PC is king. (Providing the developers don't completely **** up the PC version)
 
Show me a racing game on the PC that will outshine the graphics of GT5 or PGR4
Consoles still can hold their own in some areas.

Yeah, nobody is denying that :confused:

I haven't really played many racing games on the PC or Xbox 360/PS3 so I can't comment on the graphics, but there ARE some decent racing games on the PC. However it's true that in general it lacks in that genre, but it more than makes up for it in other genres. Likewise consoles lack in some genres...etc...etc
 
it always worries me how the vast majority of people are only concernedf with what is the most powerful. Even looking back a generation most people loved the ps2 but that was the least powerful of that generation. The gfx will always be surpassed, I think everyone forgets how we all oohed and aahed at last gen screen shots, now they look slly.

But frankly so what. If a game is good it will never matter, its more about the style than the cheer pixel count of the gfx that affect a game.

So in summary, stop worrying about the hardware, just worry if the cash to get the system is reflected in the quality of the games that will be available to you.

:) love that and really it’s right, looks like I’ll be getting one then, really wont to play some of the innovative things coming...

Little Big Planet
Eye of Judgment
Guitar Hero

and then there is Final Fantasy :D and wipeout HD.

Thanks for all the discussion anyways guys; at least I didn't create a flame fest thread :cool:

XD-3
 
LMAO! Really though, your relentless and ignorant fanboyism is becoming tiresome.

Not as renlentless or tiresome as your constant ignorance. In what way am I a fanboy? Please, someone must let me know.

Is a games console without any good games a good console? It is games that make a format, whether it be Xbox360, Playstation3, PC, DS, PSP or Wii.
 
Because of the mods, I think. Epic have said UT is all about user-generated content and the PSN is better suited to that than Xbox Live.

Oblivion has mods on Xbox360, it doesn't have it on PS3. One studio has said mods are "easier" on PSN, however I've not read that these 100% won't be available over Xbox Live either.
Whether or not a console is easier to develop additional mods created by users will NOT make a console the lead format. The lead format will be the format that is in people homes, now at the moment that is the Wii or the Xbox360. Until the fortunes of the PS3 improve a lot of games will remain with the Xbox360 as the lead platform.
 
Well that sounds incredibly biased.

A PC is still the best format when it comes to quality and features, sure you're gonna possibly have to fiddle at times but hey it's part of the fun. Well it can be unless the problem is not fixable which usually is not the case.

A PC might have the best features and best quality (at a price), but it is lacking one thing. High quality games titles exclusives. I count World of Warcraft, World in Conflict, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142 and Stalker as the major exclusives in 3 years, and even then Stalker and BF2142 are very much a mixed bag. I feel I'm fully justified saying that.

I'm not biased either by the way. I will play good games on any format (or I would play more on PC if my GPU wouldn't overheat and artifact on EVERYTHING bar 3D work).
 
This arguement goes back to Sega Master/Nintendo and 286 period! Then again with PSX..which was 12mhz which was far far quicker than a 12mhz PC at the time.

Consoles have the advantage, if the operating system is written specifically for the machine. However if it's just Windows CE (just to be lazy) then not much advantage. PC's get around the OS unefficiency problem with much faster hardware. But then with consoles you have to buy new hardware (console, controllers, cables) every gen. Some games just don't translate to each other, FS/combat/FPS games on PC, arcade beat/shoot them ups on consoles.
 
Interesting that you put FPS games on the PC side. Seems you, like many others, seem to write FPS off on consoles, which is plain wrong. FPS works on both.
 
Well I guess with HDTV's you now have resolution for FPS's, need a mouse of course. Last time I played FPS on console not impressed at all.

Had PSX 1, N64, Dreamcast.
 
Odd. Goldeneye worked in SDTV.
As did Perfect Dark.
And TimeSplitters.
And Black.
And Medal of Honor.
And Medal of Honor: Frontline.
And Turok.
And Quake 3 Arena.
And Halo.
And Metroid Prime.

Wait a minute...
 
Well that sounds incredibly biased.

A PC is still the best format when it comes to quality and features, sure you're gonna possibly have to fiddle at times but hey it's part of the fun. Well it can be unless the problem is not fixable which usually is not the case.

You've completely missed his point.
 
During the four or five years that the PS2 was the primary release for Sony - the graphics / gameplay and everything else increased off the chart as programmers got more and more used to dealing with the notoriously awkward hardware (not to mention the continued release by Sony of more dev tools etc)

Im sure this also happened to a lesser extent with the Xbox (only lesser because it was on release a lot shorter period)

It takes a lot of time for the developers to get the most out of any given hardware - as can be shown between the initial releases for the X360 and stuff released a few weeks ago - marked improvements all around (personally still feel some dont have as much charachter, seem a little cold to me, but thats just my feeling) and no doubt the x360 will get better in the rest of its lifespan on the market also

In the same period how much will graphics/cpus/memory increase for pc's (not to mention the cost of these items) a top line pc spec would change dramatically in the same period of time - yet the console game swould keep pace pretty well imo
 
You're doing it wrong then.

have you even bothered to read my post ?

where did i ever say that my PC didnt play the latest games, or that its suffering from slowness or anything of the sort ?

take a look at the bigger picture. The PC isnt a highly specialzed gaming device. Its a multi purpose device that does a hell of a lot of things other than play games

and not only that, but its hardware is interfaced with operating system that is not in the slightest bit optimized , but full of old 16bit code thats not needed.

Somebody prooved just point, they sent a simple command to the soundcard. The latency on this command was about 90ms in widows. In OSX it was about 15ms.

This is because of all the bloat thats inside windows. Now, as you've noticed windows machines do make great computer consoles. Why ? because of moores law. Theres no optimisation, its just that every year we upgrade and throw bigger and faster hardware at it.

a PS3 doesnt need all this expensive and cutting edge hardware thrown at it. same with the 360. look at what forza 2 achieves given the age of its hardware ...

a PC is only any good at games if throw expensive hardware at it. us PC gamers are under the impression that these ultra fast graphics cards are "needed" to play good games. They're not

Half of that power is needed to overcome the deficit that is windows. Without that deficit, consoles need much less power

Really windows needs to be re written from the ground up, and probably some inovation on the CPU front. Intel proposed a new instruction set long before x64 came along. They wanted to completely re-write the rule book. but MS said they wouldnt write an OS for it, effectively killing it before it started.

why are we still using x86 chips etc.. ? because MS has stiffled any innovation in this area refusing to write a new operating system for it.

Im not denying that 2k makes a very fast games machine. Im saying that if MS booked their ideas up, they could make it a LOT faster for much less. Like i say, look at forza 2 on the 360 .. look at Halo 2 on the Xbox. That game looks stunning considering the hardware the xbox had. a PC could never achieve that level of detail with that hardware.
 
Last edited:
Really you didn't need to write all of that to explain your point Mr.LOL. Everyone knows that consoles can output better quality graphics...etc with lesser hardware compared to a PC because it's a dedicated, optimized gaming system.

The point still remains though, if you go out and build a high spec gaming PC today it will do more than a console, it will have more features, more customisation options and better graphics.
 
Not to add to where this could be going (Pc VS console debate), but sure a PC can do many things a console cant (well not so much a PS3:D), but i got a pretty good Gaming PC, plays all of the PC games i want to play. But one thing a PC cant do (well without being illegal) is to play games such as God of War, Final Fantasy 13, Metal gear solid 4, Littlebigplanet etc etc. So what if you got a 2k gaming PC ? you still cant play console exclusives on it and these are the games i want to play as well as the PC games, and it just happens that with the PS3 (and Sony consoles before it), and to its part Nintendo, that most of its games stay on the console and don't migrate to the PC, unlike the 360 and Xbox as Microsoft are trying to support both its PC and Xbox software.
 
Back
Top Bottom