It has been said consoles will never catch upto PC's but.....

ps3isthebestobe

Superior Member
Jan 23, 2008
537
0
0
31
#1
i just realized this the other day....although consoles may never be on par with computer's in terms of spec's, with each generation it seems the gap between the two is progressively getting smaller...

For example, i was sorely dissapointed last generation, when i ran out to the stores to pick up medal of honor: frontline for my gamecube....at the time i thought the experience would compare to the experience i just had with medal of honor allied assault on pc (which i thought was frikkin outstanding online/offline) however i came to find not only was it a cruddy port of the ps2 version, the whole game was toned down, although i still enjoyed this game quite alot, i was always craving for that little bit extra....the same can be said for the cod series and the battlefield series, both consoles seeing what can only be described as a reduced experience

But then this generation came along, and here i was playing Cod4 on a pretty maxed out pc and i was only hoping that when i picked up the ps3 version it would compare.....not only did it compare, but i much preffered playing it on a big screen....

So although PC might get the occasional exclusive, and feature a bit better AA and AF of many of the multiplats, i am happy because today console's are generally powerful enough to replicate most games seen on the pc, even if somethings have to be left out...i feel as the generations roll on the need for power will become slightly irrelevent, especially as the law of doubling returns starts to break down(moore's law), but unless quantum computing arrives (if it ever does) who knows what we will see
 

shambles2

Superior Member
Dec 3, 2006
643
0
0
35
#2
Naturally the PC you play on is only as good as the parts in it. Consoles in general are probably a little more than the average computer (Unless you're playing GTA4 ugh). But consoles will never touch gaming rigs. I have COD4 on both a high-ish end PC and for my PS3. The graphics and controls are a full step above on PC, but I had just as much fun on the console version playing online. My K-D ratio tends to fare a lot better on console as well :p

I'd agree with the notion that game consoles and personal computers have started to merge into each other in this last generation. Eventually I'd assume consoles will end up like HTPC's more than anything.
 

Acid Snake

Super Elite
Sep 7, 2008
2,030
16
38
#3
I can see consoles catching up to pc's. Right now I still think pc's have the edge over consoles but by next generation that might not even be the case. I mean take gta4 for example, it runs perfectly on both systems but with the pc version you need a bit of a monster computer to get the same performance and visuals. You also can't forget the fact that consoles will last years and play every game perfectly assuming the devs don't screw up.

The same thing can't be said for pc gaming. If you want the best performance and visuals at high resolutions you'll have to update or add another video card about every year and a half. Less in some cases.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
47
#4
The gap is pretty stable, but as technology improves, it tends to be less significant in terms of graphics.

This isn't to say there isn't still a huge gap. There's nothing on consoles that can come close to the complexity of PC game modding and addons. (Consider that the addons for a fairly well-established WoW install may take up more space than the PS3 has total memory, let alone memory left after running a game engine.)
 
S

silvermanor

Guest
#5
I truly believe it happened when consoles went HD. Computer games have been HD for ages, and I used to be interested in PC games because they were so sharp. Resolution is a pretty big thing in games and it was the one thing that was holding back SD consoles. When these new next gen ones went HD it was night and day and I personally was finally happy and lost all interest in PC games. With an SD console, even the best most advanced looking games were held back by the resolution. Now the resolutions can compete with PC games.
 

Kopkiwi

Power Member
May 11, 2007
16,001
13
38
35
#6
Me and a mate were talking the other day and we both agreed that consoles at some stage will head down the same road as PC gaming. I mean that in the sense of everything being upgradeable. We are already seeing that with the HDD being very easy to change, it is only a matter of time before graphics cards and such go down the same road.
 

seebs

Elite Sage
Dec 29, 2006
11,822
0
0
47
#7
[QUOTE="kopkiwi, post: 0]Me and a mate were talking the other day and we both agreed that consoles at some stage will head down the same road as PC gaming. I mean that in the sense of everything being upgradeable. We are already seeing that with the HDD being very easy to change, it is only a matter of time before graphics cards and such go down the same road.[/quote]

I don't think so.

The entire point of the console is that, because it's not upgradeable, you can write programs for it and actually expect them to just work out of the box.

For the console to abandon this, it would have to abandon the only reason anyone plays them.
 

MjW

Forum Sage
Oct 30, 2006
7,873
64
48
#8
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 0]I don't think so.

The entire point of the console is that, because it's not upgradeable, you can write programs for it and actually expect them to just work out of the box.

For the console to abandon this, it would have to abandon the only reason anyone plays them.[/quote]
Good point.

Of course we will see more customization on consoles but nowhere near the PC other wise consoles will loose the thing they are known for.
 
Nov 4, 2008
129
0
0
#9
The PC always has had a step in front, (sometimes a leap), of consoles. The reason why we're thinking the gap is getting smaller is because that PC gaming have long been at the point where better ghaphics are rarely noticed and only innovations can reset the bar higher. The consoles are improving with each generation, slowly progressing to PC are. Obviously, PC gaming will alway that slight edge no matter what because of the frequently released graphics cards and whatnot. All you need is the dosh to keep that edge.

That's my opinion of it anyways.
 
S

Secretplayer

Guest
#10
[QUOTE="ps3isthebestobe, post: 0]i just realized this the other day....although consoles may never be on par with computer's in terms of spec's, with each generation it seems the gap between the two is progressively getting smaller...

For example, i was sorely dissapointed last generation, when i ran out to the stores to pick up medal of honor: frontline for my gamecube....at the time i thought the experience would compare to the experience i just had with medal of honor allied assault on pc (which i thought was frikkin outstanding online/offline) however i came to find not only was it a cruddy port of the ps2 version, the whole game was toned down, although i still enjoyed this game quite alot, i was always craving for that little bit extra....the same can be said for the cod series and the battlefield series, both consoles seeing what can only be described as a reduced experience

But then this generation came along, and here i was playing Cod4 on a pretty maxed out pc and i was only hoping that when i picked up the ps3 version it would compare.....not only did it compare, but i much preffered playing it on a big screen....

So although PC might get the occasional exclusive, and feature a bit better AA and AF of many of the multiplats, i am happy because today console's are generally powerful enough to replicate most games seen on the pc, even if somethings have to be left out...i feel as the generations roll on the need for power will become slightly irrelevent, especially as the law of doubling returns starts to break down(moore's law), but unless quantum computing arrives (if it ever does) who knows what we will see[/quote]

Everything you say is totaly wrong.

First, i dont remember that medal of honor allied assault were relesed for PS2?
How did you compare it to PC version?? Maybe it was launched on PS2 by different name or something?

You preffered playing it on a big screen?? What? You cant play PC on big screen? (like I on 40"?)

A bit better AA and AF of many of the multiplats?? A bit??? - you dont have PC or you dont know what are you talking about or you have crappy PC.

Console's are generally powerful enough to replicate most games seen on the pc? Maybe, if you consindering barely 30fps medium detail, low res and slow loading be the same as max details, AA, AF, fps up to sky, and res more the 1080p

Its all about how strong PC will you buy, gameing rigs are expensive but they give you much better experience then consoles in every aspect of wiev.

You can buy PC for 600$ wich will play any multiplat game better then PS3 or Xbox 360. I play GTA4 on my old PC (C2D8400, 3870 512MB, 2GB) and its just beat a crap out of console versions (1360x768 50fps+ ultra high render quality) and thats my old PC wich you can buy for what? 400$? Now guess what you can play with 2-3000$ rig?

PS3 and X360 are cheap PCs, with no option to upgrade (that is what the term "Console" mean)
 
Nov 4, 2008
129
0
0
#11
There's a defender of the faith if I ever saw one.

Though Secretplayer made valid points, I think the all talk of the PC gaming market dying is because they're more of console owners than there are PC gamers. Consoles may never as powerful as the gaming PC but that doesn't mean they're not as enjoyable.
 
S

Secretplayer

Guest
#12
[QUOTE="Full Time Gamer, post: 0]There's a defender of the faith if I ever saw one.

Though Secretplayer made valid points, I think the all talk of the PC gaming market dying is because they're more of console owners than there are PC gamers. Consoles may never as powerful as the gaming PC but that doesn't mean they're not as enjoyable.[/quote]

Ofcourse..if that wasnt true i wouldnt bought PS1, Xbox, and wouldnt play PS3 and Xbox 360 with my friends who have them. Console strenght are exclusives, you cant play GT5p on pc, you cant play R2 or LBP on PC, you cant...you get it

Consoles are ideal for someone who dont have $$$ to upgrade every 2 years PC (wich is not worth of extra experience, i have PC because my job ask for it)
 

MjW

Forum Sage
Oct 30, 2006
7,873
64
48
#13
[QUOTE="Secretplayer, post: 0]Its all about how strong PC will you buy, gameing rigs are expensive but they give you much better experience then consoles in every aspect of wiev. [/quote]
I would agree that PCs have some good points like mods and unsurpassed graphics but saying that, is just plain wrong.

Because if they did give you a "much better experience than consoles in every aspect of view" as you say. PC gaming wouldn't have lost such a big pie from the gaming market to consoles and neither all PC developers would start focusing on consoles.
 

ps3isthebestobe

Superior Member
Jan 23, 2008
537
0
0
31
#14
OI did i ever say it was the same game

"at the time i thought the experience would compare to the experience i just had with medal of honor allied assault on pc (which i thought was frikkin outstanding online/offline) however i came to find not only was it a cruddy port of the ps2 version, the whole game was toned down"

ummm no i said it was a different game, and i didnt realize until i played it that the last gen of consoles simply had no chance of replicating the MOH AA experience, but this generation we are finding that instead of toned down versions, we are getting the same experience with toned down graphics....(--00--)

and of course u can play your pc on the big screen if your gonna be that nerdy go for it i dont think you understood the point,

Console's are generally powerful enough to replicate most games seen on the pc? Maybe, if you consindering barely 30fps medium detail, low res and slow loading be the same as max details, AA, AF, fps up to sky, and res more the 1080p

yeah thats how i summed it up as well, worse graphics, same gaming experience (-0-)
 
S

Secretplayer

Guest
#15
[QUOTE="MjW, post: 0]I would agree that PCs have some good points like mods and unsurpassed graphics but saying that, is just plain wrong.

Because if they did give you a "much better experience than consoles in every aspect of view" as you say. PC gaming wouldn't have lost such a big pie from the gaming market to consoles and neither all PC developers would star focusing on consoles.[/quote]

Its pirate thing..thats sickness of PC gaming. GTA4 for PC did have Sony protection DRM with 200.000$ invested in it (securerom 7) but hackers smashed it in 4 hours after game relesed - shame.




[QUOTE="ps3isthebestobe, post: 0]OI did i ever say it was the same game

ummm no i said it was a different game, and i didnt realize until i played it that the last gen of consoles simply had no chance of replicating the MOH AA experience, but this generation we are finding that instead of toned down versions, we are getting the same experience with toned down graphics....jesus you gotta be stupid or something

and of course u can play your pc on the big screen if your gonna be that nerdy go for it i dont think you understood the point,

yeah thats how i summed it up as well, worse graphics, same gaming experience fool[/quote]

You cant expect "replicating experience" of some PC game on console with another game, you must play same game to compare that "experience"

"and of course u can play your pc on the big screen if your gonna be that nerdy" - what? conecting HDMI from PC to TV is nerdy and connecting PS3 to TV is not nerdy? Nice point.

"worse graphics, same gaming experience" - no, its not same experience, thats the point, playing racing games on 20fps and 100fps is not the same gaming experience.

There was no need for insulting, you got reported.
 
Nov 4, 2008
129
0
0
#16
It's pretty obviously that piracy have deterred developers away from the PC market, making their game for the consoles. Hypothetically, say GG wasn't funded by Sony and decided to make Killzone for the PC. One they would have the piracy problem, that's clear, but the game, IMO, wouldn't make the impact on the PC as it would on any console. It would be stack against a heavy-hitter like Crysis and lose out.
 

sonickev

Apprentice
Mar 29, 2007
473
0
0
51
#17
One aspect that will probably start to make a difference to the PS3 in particular is networked processing. Once all of these machines start to work together on the Internet, then standardisation of the processor, etc. makes the whole job much eaiser to deploy and much more efficient with the processor.

Networked consoles, all with exactly the same power and resources is an extremely attractive proposition for networked processing.... one of the reasons the Cell processor was designed and chosen for the PS3. Isn't the presence of [email protected] just a clue to where this is going and the power that is there compared with all the PCs?

Look at the TFLOPS (Terra Floating Point Operations) number for PS3 compared with the number for PCs. Then lok at how many PCs are producing that number...
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=osstats
 

SpyroViper

The Derailer
May 9, 2008
6,081
15
0
33
#18
PC's will always be ahead of consoles. I know it's no comparison but you can build any kind of PC you want for as much as you want. Whereas a console is stuck in it's state for life. A PC with a Quad Core Q9600 at 3.8Ghz 8GB RAM and 4 ATi HD4870's will kick the ***** out of any console. And we can at least play at 2K resolutions at 60FPS.:snicker
 
Dec 6, 2008
46
0
0
#19
Consoles will generally keep up with PC gaming, because its easy to optimize a game for a console, 1 configuration, but with PC, there are millions. This is why console ports, like GTAIV perform badly...They are optimized for a few different configurations.

The GPU in the PS3 is as powerful as 2 6800's in SLi, that power has been far surpassed by PCs. I'd like to see a PS3 render CoD4 at 2560x1600 4xAA, 16xAF at ~60FPS...
 
Nov 4, 2008
129
0
0
#20
[QUOTE="SpyroViper, post: 3603373]PC's will always be ahead of consoles. I know it's no comparison but you can build any kind of PC you want for as much as you want. Whereas a console is stuck in it's state for life. A PC with a Quad Core Q9600 at 3.8Ghz 8GB RAM and 4 ATi HD4870's will kick the ***** out of any console. And we can at least play at 2K resolutions at 60FPS.:snicker[/quote]

While that clearly true are you willing to spend £2,500 - £3,000 on it, if not more?
 
Sep 23, 2006
111
0
0
43
#21
[QUOTE="Full Time Gamer, post: 0]While that clearly true are you willing to spend £2,500 - £3,000 on it, if not more?[/quote]

!!! you can make a pc with less then £1,000 that make ps3 and x360 on shame.
 

ps3isthebestobe

Superior Member
Jan 23, 2008
537
0
0
31
#22
mate for the purpose of being an ******* you can be as picky as you want....as i said computers will always have an edge, all i was saying, that consoles today AT LEAST have many game's in common with the PC despite the toned down graphics and reduced frames...i have been a pc gamer for many years dude and i know there is always going to be a difference especially with the mouse and all....but coming from last generation where developers had to reconstruct each game for the console. Your making it out as if these PC games like cod4 have some extra sort of game mechanic in them...however i believe the only difference you will find is in frames, texture res, AA, AF and overall visual quality...however that doesn't mean any of the actual gaming mechanic is compramised indeed it is not, and if you feel that way that is because you prefer mouse over gaming pad...which i do as well but only for games like CS:S...sorry for calling you a nerd and stuff i just get a little rowdy when people say im wrong
 
B

BioSonic

Guest
#23
And yet I'll always like consoles better, cheaper, performance is more than good enough (see KZ2) and keyboard + mouse is the worst controller i have ever used.
 
Nov 4, 2008
129
0
0
#24
[QUOTE="jjlikesfootball, post: 0]And yet I'll always like consoles better, cheaper, performance is more than good enough (see KZ2) and keyboard + mouse is the worst controller i have ever used.[/quote]

What?! The keyboard and mouse is one the best controllers going. Admittedly, it takes a couple of months to for your hand muscles to adjust though. If a shooter allowed both pad controller and mouse/keyboard in the same game the pad controller.

Say that though, other genres are more suited for pads so I ain't trying against that wave I tell ye.
 
Jun 1, 2007
3,674
11
0
43
#26
Yawn. Another sorry excuse of a PC vs Console thread. PC is superior but comes at a cost. Keyboard + Mouse rules on FPS.

That is all...
 
S

Secretplayer

Guest
#27
[QUOTE="ps3isthebestobe, post: 0]mate for the purpose of being an ******* you can be as picky as you want....as i said computers will always have an edge, all i was saying, that consoles today AT LEAST have many game's in common with the PC despite the toned down graphics and reduced frames...i have been a pc gamer for many years dude and i know there is always going to be a difference especially with the mouse and all....but coming from last generation where developers had to reconstruct each game for the console. Your making it out as if these PC games like cod4 have some extra sort of game mechanic in them...however i believe the only difference you will find is in frames, texture res, AA, AF and overall visual quality...however that doesn't mean any of the actual gaming mechanic is compramised indeed it is not, and if you feel that way that is because you prefer mouse over gaming pad...which i do as well but only for games like CS:S...sorry for calling you a nerd and stuff i just get a little rowdy when people say im wrong[/quote]

I dont like so much mouse and keyboard, i am buying now 360 gamepad, it has support in every new pc game and its realy good.

And i dont play PC games becouse i dont want to play on consoles, i just dont have money for it, i must have PC for work so i invested litlle more to be able play new games. For your info PS3 in my country is around 600-800$ (depens what bundle you buy) and games are 60-100$ each. X360 is 300$ for arcade or 600$ for elite. Games also around 60-100$ and average monthly paycheck is 900$
 
Oct 19, 2006
79
0
0
34
#28
I agree the gap has narrowed somewhat, largely because tvs can now display higher resolutions so we're getting better visuals. As far as power goes, I don't think consoles will ever catch up to high end pcs unless pc hardware manufactuers such ati/nvidia go out of business (they won't btw). PCs being ahead of consoles is not a bad thing at all, the pc after all made this gen possible. Lets not forget that games like half-life 2, far cry pc, doom 3 etc helped set up this gen. Without those games visuals this gen wouldn't have gotten such a large leap imo. Likewise a game like crysis will be a stepping stone to where next gen visuals will go.
 
B

BioSonic

Guest
#29
[QUOTE="Full Time Gamer, post: 0]What?! The keyboard and mouse is one the best controllers going. Admittedly, it takes a couple of months to for your hand muscles to adjust though. If a shooter allowed both pad controller and mouse/keyboard in the same game the pad controller.

Say that though, other genres are more suited for pads so I ain't trying against that wave I tell ye.[/quote]

It just isn't as compact as a gamepad, I find that a gamepad is much more intuative than hitting random keys 6" apart. I know that I'm in the tiny minority, and I can see why most people think a KB+M is the best. Just isn't for me. ;)
 

DangerousMali

Ultimate Veteran
Oct 9, 2007
20,373
18
0
31
#30
[QUOTE="Insanehead, post: 0]Yawn. Another sorry excuse of a PC vs Console thread. PC is superior but comes at a cost. Keyboard + Mouse rules on FPS.

That is all...[/quote]

The thread only contains comparisons, so don't start calling it a battle of some sort.

Also the Keyboard and mouse ruling is an opinion i disagree on, control pads are awesome and generally feel better to handle.

I agree with the OP on how games this gen are much more comparable to the PC versions.

Differences are good enough not to fork out more dough to get more pixels or frames.