Console vs PC (pick yer brain)

aries2580

aries2580

aries2580

Associate
Joined
1 Apr 2009
Posts
413
Hey all and welcome :D

So, I had just installed UT3 and had a wee blast at that. Settings everything maxed out. Mostly in the 60FPS range, but there are times where it drops violently to the 30's on demios and some other levels.

So got a bit annoyed with that, tweaked the settings and left crysis wars downloading updates and went to play some killzone2.

Now sitting there playing Killzone. Not a single drop in frames. (i have completed that game twice so i know when it gets heated)
No jaggies - so that means aa is enabled... Basically that game looks lovely and a lot better than UT3 in my eyes.

So my question is, why does my awesome 'gaming pc' find it hard to cope with games that are less graphically appealing, when the PS3 is running them with no problems on apparently lesser hardware?

Is it to do with optimization?
I'm thinking that its due to the face pc games have to run on such a vast variety of hardware, while the console games only have to think about what they are given to work with?

*shugs* This is by no means a flame war or anything, just a friendly discussion. :)
 
Well as far as I know the console version is generally less quality graphic wise than the pc version. I heard the newest GTA was out later for the pc than the console just to the quality increase, I could be wrong this is just what I was told.
 
What are the specs of your rig and what OS are you running? Also, how does the resolution of your PC monitor compare to the res of your TV?
 
mai spec is

Q6600 - stock atm
4GB DDR3 OCZ Intel Extreme 1066 (not at rated 1600 yet)
4850
vista x64

But yes, the resolution i forgot :P
killzone is running on a standard deff tv. Its So huge at the back hence the CRT lol i love old tech
 
Overclock the Q6600 and 4850, have V-Sync off, have the right graphics drivers and settings and you should be able to get better performance for Unreal Tournament 3. Besides the Unreal 3 engine is known to have some quirks, the bad texture loading being the biggest example, and some of the levels in UT3 are badly done themselves.

As for Killzone 2 on the PS3, the developers obviously spend a long time making and optimising the game. Afterall, the pre-rendered trailer was shown in E3 2005 and they had all these years to produce the game. Not only is it the optimising, but it is also down to some neat tricks and having the right artstyle to make a game look good.
 
aries2580 said:
But doesn't GTA run like a dog?
Click to expand...

Admittedly, GTA 4 is a pretty bad port. But if you have a triple core or above and a 4850/gts 250 or more the game looks great and has no problems. I heard the PS3 and 360 were pushed to the edge by that game - and looked considerably worse than a properly working PC version.

And for every bad port there is an excellent one such as Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, mass effect. These games don't need the best hardware - but almost always look and play superior to their console brothers.

Also, I find mouse and keyboard to be the best input device for many of my favourite types of games (FPS, RPG, RTS), while a gamepad does well with sports games, drivers and platformers.

In my mind the PC is the optimal gaming solution at the moment - it has a massive back catalogue of brilliant games that work fine, the technology is constantly evolving, the best console games get ported and PC-only games push the boundaries (crysis, MMOs, peggle).

Also - if you like wii, dolphin emu looks pretty cool.
 
Phatjayunoi said:
Besides the Unreal 3 engine is known to have some quirks, the bad texture loading being the biggest example
Click to expand...

Ah, I didnt know that.

Any yes I agree I prefer the pc for mai games. I just cannot get enough of crysis wars.
Its been too long since I last played. (Since Christmas actually... :eek:)

Well anyway its nice to read all your comments, and yes farcry 2 is amazing and runs really well with x2 AA :D

By 'settings' Are you taking about the ati driver settings? Any tips on tweaking those?
 
cmndr_andi said:
And for every bad port there is an excellent one such as Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, mass effect. These games don't need the best hardware - but almost always look and play superior to their console brothers.
.
Click to expand...

I have Fallout 3 for the PS3 and PC, PC version doesn't run as smooth as the PS3 and I find the graphics aren't that much better either but I am usually sat closer with the PC version.

GTA4 sometimes lags on the PS3 I find but not very often, haven't tried it out on the PC yet.

Most console ports for the PC annoy me especially some of the newer ones as they evn go as far as to having only an XBOX360 gamepad as secondary input (wheelman anyone).

PCs and consoles both have there pros and cons and some games run better on one than the other so it balances out most of the time, eventually PCs will start to slaughter the consoles in the graphics department again though but only after you start spending £100s on hardware upgrades.
 
Consoles are more efficient at the task they were built for, games.
A PC is an all purpose device that can excel in many areas but at a ridiculous cost.
 
yashiro said:
Consoles are more efficient at the task they were built for, games.
A PC is an all purpose device that can excel in many areas but at a ridiculous cost.
Click to expand...

I agree - but I would make one amendment- Consoles are efficient at playing games using the three year old hardware they have at their disposal.

Ridiculous cost? I suppose that can be the case - but I have seen and made many sub £400 gaming PCs that put the PS3 to shame. Playing Far Cry 2, COD 4 and many more far better than any of its console cousins could ever hope to do.

I agree that if you go for a £1000+ i7 rig then you are not just getting superb gaming performance but also a number crunching monster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom