Okay, I'm mostly just gonna ramble, so stay away if you're too lazy to read this... xD
And before I start don't tell me that what's most important in games is gameplay and that's what makes consoles so good. Of course gameplay is important, but a game with good gameplay can't possibly get worse if it looks good too.
#1: Resolution
According to [url]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/275135/news/cod-black-ops-is-sub-hd-360-trumps-ps3/[/url] the resolution in Call of Duty on both PS3 and Xbox 360 just outright sucks. Blow up 960x544 to a 50' TV and you got yourself some insanely large pixels. Just compare the computing power of a graphics card in a computer:
PS3: 960x544 with 2xMSAA at "60" fps, dropping all the time.
XB360: 1040x600 with 2xMSAA at close to 60 fps.
Me on my PC: 1920x1080 with 8xMSAA, capped by CoD at 91 FPS.
PC vs PS3: 4x the number of pixels, with four times more sampling.
That's 16x the fill rate and 4x the shading performance PER FRAME. On average I have 1.5x to 2x the framerate, giving me 24x to 32x the fill rate and 6x to 8x the shading performance. Okay. I'm even shocked by that myself.
#2: RAM
Ever tried to start a computer with 512MB RAM? Don't even try, the hard drive swapping will freeze your computer all the time. Ever tried to GAME on 512MB RAM? No? Both Xbox 360 and PS3 have 512MB RAM, shared with the GPU in somewhat different layouts.
An average gaming PC today has 4GB (= 4096MB) RAM. Woot. Sure, you have to run the Bane of Micro$oft, Windows, which sucks up about 1GB, but that's still 6x the amount of RAM. But graphics cards have their own memory. Graphics cards today mostly have 1GB and up. 8x more usable total memory than consoles, in other words.
What does that mean then?
- Texture quality. Easily seen in screenshots. Consoles look like I see the world without glasses.
- Deferred shading. It requires an awful lot of VRAM, making it almost impossible to use on consoles.
- Anti aliasing: Also requires a lot of VRAM. Deferred shading + 8xMSAA can easily exceed 1GB VRAM at 1920x1080.
- Object detail. More memory (and bandwidth) equals more vertices equals smoother, less Minecrafty objects.
- Loading times. More things can be cached in RAM, reducing the hard drive and disc reads.
But hey. Do games really use that much RAM? Is there really an advantage in having more?
When playing CoD: Black Ops, I got constant warnings about low memory from Windows, and I had 4GB RAM + 896MB VRAM. Think about how degraded the game must be when about 3GB (3.5GB + 512MB VRAM - 1GB Windows) of RAM have to be reduced to 512MB. As computers also can multitask, I just picked up 4GB more for $50, for a total of 17.5x the amount of memory of an PS3 or XBox 360.
FUN FACT: Low amount of RAM is the main annoyance when using PS3s in computing clouds.
#3 The PS3 imbalance
Who the fuck came up with the idea to put together a gaming machine with an 8-core processor, 512MB RAM and a graphics card older than Santa? Xbox 360 fares slightly better, selling of 5 cores for a better graphics card, but the RAM shortage is still pretty severe. But back to the PS3. BFBC2 is a model example. The developers had to use half of the processor cores to CULL INDIVIDUAL TRIANGLES, something the graphics card has always done. You usually do frustum culling on the CPU, but you don't cull individual triangles. It just shows how severely underpowered the GTX 7800-based graphics card in the PS3 is when they have to do it's work on the processor. Of course it's harder to optimize games for the PS3 if you have to use workarounds like that.
BTW, I used to have a GTX 7900 on my old computer. Got a much better one now, as it was lagging like hell when firing IN COD4!
#4 Consoles are holding us back
The hardware limitations of graphics hardware is annoying as hell. Only lately have graphics card been usable for other things than drawing triangles. Hell, we just recently got shaders! With DirectX 10 came computing on graphics cards, allowing for video encoding, image processing, scientific computing, etc. But what do we care? We just want nice looking triangles.
For BF3, DICE stated that they will drop DX9 support. Why? Their Deferred shading solution uses computing to light the scene. It could apparently be implemented much more effectively than with a standard approach. There are many real-time graphics techniques (MLAA for example) that are perfect for computing, but consoles are holding us back. They only have hardware with capabilities similar to a limited version of DirectX 9. Add low graphics performance and graphics quality just went down the drain. Considering that most games are made with consoles as primary target, consoles are killing PC graphics. If you smiled there, please die painfully.
#5 The Mouse
I only play aircraft simulators with joysticks. Nuff said.
Done bashing for a while now I think. To be somewhat reasonable, I'm actually gonna bring up some bad things about PC gaming!
#1 Cheap and easy
Compared to computers, consoles are cheaper. They also last longer for good and for bad, you're gonna be stuck with "high-end hardware" until the next console comes out. Games always run, you don't have to worry about hardware conflicts which have plagued PCs right from their birth, no drivers, no Windows. One could argue that you need an expensive TV too, but let's face it. Who hasn't got a TV nowadays?
Compared to a PC, which can cost you well over $1000, consoles are cheap. I still consider my computer a good buy though, as I use it for other stuff than gaming too, like programming, school stuff, the internet, etc. But whatever. The only thing that annoys me is the higher price of console games. Why do I have to pay $20 more for a game that looks a lot worse than the PC version? Greedy $ony and Micro$oft, shame!
#2 Console specific games
The only thing that I think justifies buying a console is console specific games. I wanna play Final Fantasy... ;_;
#3 Too tired to come up with anything else...
If I had a console, I could game 'till I fall asleep in the sofa!
Oh, god, did I write that wall of text? Sorry!!! T___T
To end my post, let me tell you about a forum post I read. A guy said that it was unacceptable to have V-sync disabled on consoles. To quote: "On such a powerful system, tearing is unacceptable." I lost a bucketful of compassion permanently by reading that.
Also, PSN. Badum tish!
:downsbravo:
Ok. I figured everyone knew this already anyway.
:bravo:
:bravo:
:bravo:
I just finished moving.
Have some boxes I don't need anymore.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Use ratings" - Overv))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=MIPS;29557241]I just finished moving.
Have some boxes I don't need anymore.[/QUOTE]
Stop doing this, the rating system is in place so you won't post about it.
[QUOTE=Chickens!;29557256]Stop doing this, the rating system is in place so you won't post about it.[/QUOTE]
agree
:specialschool:
Pretty sure most people already knew this.
[QUOTE=QuickSnapz;29557267]agree[/QUOTE]
It's also a ban reason.
who gives a fuck
hi i am also filled with intense care wrt to consoles vs pc, truly the defining debate of our generation
I liked it...
shit I cant tell an op to get out of his own thread can I?
Agreed on most parts, though as others have said we don't need to hear this.
We know about this ever since the console wars started.
Theres always retards and trolls who say this isn't true, but whatever.
Welcome to Facepunch, OP. This is a prime example of what NOT to do.
Op, there's something you have to understand about the "underpowered" graphics chips in consoles: They're pretty shite now, but at the time they were top-end gpus. Actually, I think the Nvidia 8 series were out by the time of PS3 release, but they obviously couldn't use them because the development had to start a lot earlier and the new gpus were too expensive. (500$+ for the 8800GTX)
The amount of memory in the consoles however, is simply inexcusable. WTF were they thinking? Like having 512MB ram in PS3, that's system and video ram [B]combined[/B]. 1-2GB was pretty much the standard for PCs at the time, not counting video memory. I'm not sure whether they believed it would be enough, or just used it as a way of cutting costs - it still doesn't make much sense since it would only save them like 10$ per console.
Wasn't there a thread about this in like 2008
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj6fgnMvQw[/media]
PC obviously looks much better.
Do I see antialiasing on that Xbox? Nope.
[QUOTE=Bonta-mokyu;29557153]
- Texture quality. Easily seen in screenshots. Consoles look like I see the world without glasses.
[/QUOTE]
Hah, exactly what I've been thinking.
For the record, you guys know that little thing with letters at different sizes that is used to check eyesight?
With my right eye, I couldn't see a single one. Not even the top one. With my left eye, I saw the top letter and the row under that.
If I want to imagine I'm playing on a PS3, 360 or a Wii, I just have to take my glasses off.
CoD sucks up so much RAM on our PCs because infinity ward half assed porting it to PCs.
[QUOTE=nikomo;29557562]Hah, exactly what I've been thinking.
For the record, you guys know that little thing with letters at different sizes that is used to check eyesight?
With my right eye, I couldn't see a single one. Not even the top one. With my left eye, I saw the top letter and the row under that.
If I want to imagine I'm playing on a PS3, 360 or a Wii, I just have to take my glasses off.[/QUOTE]Heh, the Wii would be more like "where's the poster?".
I own a XBox 360 and a pretty powerful PC.
I only got my XBox because my old PC died and I wanted Assassin's creed 2 and brother hood let alone some other exclusives.
But now that I have a new PC I've been on that since the day I got it.
Steam is just the best.
[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;29557584']CoD sucks up so much RAM on our PCs because infinity ward half assed porting it to PCs.[/QUOTE]
odd considering that most cod games are based on the quake 3 engine.
C'mon man, everyone knows that the Xbox 360 is the best option for any sort of true gaming. Your Pro PC attitude will get you nowhere in Hardware and Software.
[QUOTE=deloc;29557674]odd considering that most cod games are based on the quake 3 engine.[/QUOTE]
Last time i checked they use their own engine.
based on
[QUOTE=Macktastic;29557913]based on[/QUOTE]
Fuck, i didn't see that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.