142 réponses à ce sujet

[DiebytheSword]

happy_daiz wrote...

Not all monitors/TVs are created equal, either. We had a 56" DLP that we thought was the bee's knees. The bulb burned out, and we gave the tv to a friend (a ploy to get them to get rid of their crappy projection tv). Anyway...

Now we have a 40" LCD in the den, and a 55" 3D LED in the living room. All three of these TVs were 1080p HDTVs, but the LED has the best image quality, hands down. It has the best refresh rate (240), and even makes SD programming look fantastic. Blu Rays are unbelievable (as is the 3D).

So...long story short, you can't use "it looks like crap on my tv" as a basis for anything. Maybe your tv is crap.

That is all.

Not quite, because my pc hasn't been hooked up to just that TV.  I've had it hooked up to a freinds Samsung with that tru-motion jazz flatscreen.  Still pissed all over his PS3 and Xbox.

Unless you think that any of the current gen consoles hold a candle to equipment 3 or 4 generations newer in the graphics hardware department.

Look, I play on my Xbox, its good at what it does.  It makes a game as easy as toss it in and press start.  Lets not pretend that a dedicated machine made of inferior parts is somehow better than a non-dedicated machine with literally double the proccessing power on proccessor count alone, let alone operating frequency.  Or that its mighty 512MB of ram comes close to 8GB of ram with 6GB free piping in gigantic textures from a faster HDD.  Or that its R520 with R600 tricks somehow even comes close to my Evergreen GPU with its whopping 1/4 of my video ram.

I have no problem admitting that the consoles have the upper hand in the gaming market, but that is purely because they offer PC comparable with a fraction of cost and hassle.  Console people need to recognize that they aren't winning because they have faster, better machines. 

You can get an upper hand for what, one video card cycle, maybe?  Good luck with that.

[Homey C-Dawg]

I'd sure like to see a texture pack released.

[matt-bassist]

Modern Warfare 2 tried to kill PC gaming when it was released. They tried really hard. The PC gaming community, including Bethesda, CDProjekt (Witcher 2) and Bioware turned around and gave them the big middle finger.

PC gaming will never die. The only thing guaranteed to die is the current console generation.

[happy_daiz]

DiebytheSword wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

Not all monitors/TVs are created equal, either. We had a 56" DLP that we thought was the bee's knees. The bulb burned out, and we gave the tv to a friend (a ploy to get them to get rid of their crappy projection tv). Anyway...

Now we have a 40" LCD in the den, and a 55" 3D LED in the living room. All three of these TVs were 1080p HDTVs, but the LED has the best image quality, hands down. It has the best refresh rate (240), and even makes SD programming look fantastic. Blu Rays are unbelievable (as is the 3D).

So...long story short, you can't use "it looks like crap on my tv" as a basis for anything. Maybe your tv is crap.

That is all.

Not quite, because my pc hasn't been hooked up to just that TV.  I've had it hooked up to a freinds Samsung with that tru-motion jazz flatscreen.  Still pissed all over his PS3 and Xbox.

Unless you think that any of the current gen consoles hold a candle to equipment 3 or 4 generations newer in the graphics hardware department.

Look, I play on my Xbox, its good at what it does.  It makes a game as easy as toss it in and press start.  Lets not pretend that a dedicated machine made of inferior parts is somehow better than a non-dedicated machine with literally double the proccessing power on proccessor count alone, let alone operating frequency.  Or that its mighty 512MB of ram comes close to 8GB of ram with 6GB free piping in gigantic textures from a faster HDD.  Or that its R520 with R600 tricks somehow even comes close to my Evergreen GPU with its whopping 1/4 of my video ram.

I have no problem admitting that the consoles have the upper hand in the gaming market, but that is purely because they offer PC comparable with a fraction of cost and hassle.  Console people need to recognize that they aren't winning because they have faster, better machines. 

You can get an upper hand for what, one video card cycle, maybe?  Good luck with that.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying anything about PCs. At all. I was merely musing about the fact that TV quality could vary, and for the most part, that would only deal with consoles, right? Not PCs?

I was trying not to get involved in the PC/console debate, because it's futile. I was a PC gamer for years, and now I am admittedly lazy, and prefer sitting on my arse. All I was saying was that the same, identical console, hooked up to different TVs, could yield different results.

That is all.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 17 novembre 2011 - 10:52 .

[Bogsnot1]

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

Funny, this sort of comment has been making thet rounds ever since the PC was implemented.
The PC was implemeted so people could have their own Personal Computer, and not have to rely on others for storage or hardware solutions. Funny how people are now going away from tha freedom, and embracing the walled gardens of proprietary hardware, and storage that relies on others.

Meanwhile, the PC master race will soldier on, in complete control of its own destiny.

[DiebytheSword]

happy_daiz wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

Not all monitors/TVs are created equal, either. We had a 56" DLP that we thought was the bee's knees. The bulb burned out, and we gave the tv to a friend (a ploy to get them to get rid of their crappy projection tv). Anyway...

Now we have a 40" LCD in the den, and a 55" 3D LED in the living room. All three of these TVs were 1080p HDTVs, but the LED has the best image quality, hands down. It has the best refresh rate (240), and even makes SD programming look fantastic. Blu Rays are unbelievable (as is the 3D).

So...long story short, you can't use "it looks like crap on my tv" as a basis for anything. Maybe your tv is crap.

That is all.

Not quite, because my pc hasn't been hooked up to just that TV.  I've had it hooked up to a freinds Samsung with that tru-motion jazz flatscreen.  Still pissed all over his PS3 and Xbox.

Unless you think that any of the current gen consoles hold a candle to equipment 3 or 4 generations newer in the graphics hardware department.

Look, I play on my Xbox, its good at what it does.  It makes a game as easy as toss it in and press start.  Lets not pretend that a dedicated machine made of inferior parts is somehow better than a non-dedicated machine with literally double the proccessing power on proccessor count alone, let alone operating frequency.  Or that its mighty 512MB of ram comes close to 8GB of ram with 6GB free piping in gigantic textures from a faster HDD.  Or that its R520 with R600 tricks somehow even comes close to my Evergreen GPU with its whopping 1/4 of my video ram.

I have no problem admitting that the consoles have the upper hand in the gaming market, but that is purely because they offer PC comparable with a fraction of cost and hassle.  Console people need to recognize that they aren't winning because they have faster, better machines. 

You can get an upper hand for what, one video card cycle, maybe?  Good luck with that.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying anything about PCs. At all. I was merely musing about the fact that TV quality could vary, and for the most part, that would only deal with consoles, right? Not PCs?

Good point.  Sorry about blathering in your direction about the PC master race then. 

On the other hand, my point still stands that it wasn't just tested on my TV, and that both PC game and Xbox game were tested on the same TV, so TV to monitor comparison wasn't what I was basing my comparison on.

[DiebytheSword]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

Funny, this sort of comment has been making thet rounds ever since the PC was implemented.
The PC was implemeted so people could have their own Personal Computer, and not have to rely on others for storage or hardware solutions. Funny how people are now going away from tha freedom, and embracing the walled gardens of proprietary hardware, and storage that relies on others.

Meanwhile, the PC master race will soldier on, in complete control of its own destiny.

Hell yeah.

[slimgrin]

matt-bassist wrote...

Modern Warfare 2 tried to kill PC gaming when it was released. They tried really hard. The PC gaming community, including Bethesda, CDProjekt (Witcher 2) and Bioware turned around and gave them the big middle finger.

 

BF3 gave them the big middle finger cause it got better reviews and beat COD on its own turf.

Anyway. I expect average graphics cause it's a console game, and I don't expect anything like modding tools or texture packs. With very few exceptions, this is just the way it goes with muilti-platform games. Console kiddies come first.

Modifié par slimgrin, 17 novembre 2011 - 10:56 .

[happy_daiz]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Good point.  Sorry about blathering in your direction about the PC master race then. 

On the other hand, my point still stands that it wasn't just tested on my TV, and that both PC game and Xbox game were tested on the same TV, so TV to monitor comparison wasn't what I was basing my comparison on.

No worries.

Maybe I didn't explain it well. I was looking at it from a "same console, different tv" perspective. Although in my case, we have 2 identical XBoxes (both are 250GB Elites), but use them on different TVs. In theory, they would be the "same" console.

My hubby gets stuck with the 40" LCD (that looks...not so great), while I get to bask in the glory of the 55" LED. And it looks way better.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 17 novembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[sael_feman]

Soverain wrote...

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

LOL, that will NEVER HAPPEN, consoles will always be inferior to pc, my pc will more than handle next generation games easily, 8 gigs ddr3, core i7 2600, msi 460gtx talon attack graphics card. now gen and next gen cant beat my pc.

how ever the real reason for a pc that powerful as such power isnt needed for gaming is 3D Computer Graphic RENDERING!

While there is an attraction to consoles, the level of graphics they deliver is constant; little expertise is required to set them up. Unlike PCs which require some knowledge of DirectX, Power supplies, Cleaning, Operating Systems, Hardware compatibility etc....

I do own a console somewhere, an xbox360, but I would only ever use a pc for games now. 1) the games are cheaper, 2) PC users, even legitimate ones can use cracked .exe's to remove the need for the disk every time, a real hassle. Plus pc users can use their PC's for other things without Microsoft or Nintendo telling the user patronisingly; you must use our OS.

Netbooks, much despised by Steve Jobs as being better at nothing are useful in the way a console isn't. It is a mini pc, not a mini games machine. One day someone will invent a hybrid, a netbook sized device with the graphics power of two xbox 360s and with a OS of the users choice too.

But not soon.

I vote PC for ME3!

....and Infiltrator, if they haven't screwed with the powers and abilities.

S'F'

Modifié par sael_feman, 17 novembre 2011 - 10:57 .

[billy the squid]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

Funny, this sort of comment has been making thet rounds ever since the PC was implemented.
The PC was implemeted so people could have their own Personal Computer, and not have to rely on others for storage or hardware solutions. Funny how people are now going away from tha freedom, and embracing the walled gardens of proprietary hardware, and storage that relies on others.

Meanwhile, the PC master race will soldier on, in complete control of its own destiny.

Nvidia has also estimated that the PC gaming industry is worth 20 billion dollars and set to increase in the coming years, I don't think it has anything to worry about. Infact its incredibly easy and fairly cheap to build a PC now or get one custom built, so the percieved problem of being an over complicated system compaired to consoles isn't really an issue.

[Homey C-Dawg]

Best thing about PC gaming to me is not the graphics (though that's nice too) so much as the fact that games bought for the PC can be played forever. I still occasionally load up a PS1 or even earlier era game just because. Some of my favorite games ever are old 2D games or early 3D (like the wing commander series or C&C).

Not trying to dis on consoles of course. They are extremely good at what they are designed to do, just like consoles have always been, and for a much more reasonable price. There is no doubt though that PC's will always be more powerful (and much more expensive) simply because of the inherent versatility of PCs.

And PC gaming will never die. In fact I think it will only become bigger as consoles become more and more like PCs.

[slimgrin]

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

This is cute. Really. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 17 novembre 2011 - 11:04 .

[Ghost-621]

alex90c wrote...

jlmaclachlan wrote...

YES PLEASE!!! Unfortunately Bioware seem to focus all their attention on pleasing the console crowd now. Lets just hope ME3 isn't the joke that DA2 was. Button Awesome anyone?

ME3 isn't a rushed pile of sh*t so no it won't be the joke DA2 was.

That's wishful thinking at best. No offense to you, but that's what it is. Does it look like it has some promise? Judging from the leaked footage, yes (By the way Bioware, I'm going to reiterate the point of how pathetic it is on your part that it took a leak to get a proper hype), but I can't help but get the notion that we will be getting a sub-par product, even if it doesn't fit the timetable of "rushed." 

[Arkitekt]

Soverain wrote...

As a pc gamer i will be buying mass effect 3 for pc, and i would like to see bioware follow in the foot steps of dice's battlefield 3 and make the best graphics possible for Mass Effect 3 for the PC.

If anyone is in agrrement please show your support and convince BIOWARE  to do their best for the graphics for pc mass effect 3!

Thank you!

ah. no.

BF3 uses the Frostbite engine, which is kinda new in town, and BF3 is its selling product.

Mass Effect has legacy code, graphs, models, animations, etc.,etc. to be transported to ME3.

This means that ME has to use the same Unreal Engine that they have been using since the beggining, with some few improvements, if they are not to waste their time with a whole new engine and actually focus on their core values, such as dialogue, choices, rpg, environments, npcs, story, etc.

Long story short, ME3 will be using a slightly better, more polished version of the Unreal Engine.

It won't have BF3 levels.

Hey, perhaps Mass Effect 4 will? Who knows.

[Raptor2213]

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

So in other words, they'll be what a PC already is, only without the ability to mod our games?  All that makes them is slightly closer to what a PC already is.  


Furthermore, knowing Microsoft, these "Modular Upgrades" will cost 3 times as much as the equivalent PC hardware.  (I.E. the hard drives for the Xbox).

What I can see, is the arguement changing from "PCs are more expensive, but you can do sooo much more with them." to "PCs are less expensive, and you can do sooo much more with them."  

[Arkitekt]

Rather than having a pointless consoles vs pc war, I'd advise you to stick to more interesting thoughts.

I was saying that ME3 won't use Frostbite, so it won't have BF3's graphic levels.

However this is not entirely accurate. Frostbite 2 (the version used in BF3) has a new radiosity engine, (Geomerics), which is the major stuff that makes BF3 so ridiculously beautiful. In July this year, they made another contract with UE3, and since that point, developers could use the Geomerics' engine for their UE developed-for games.

So, if Bioware *really* wanted it, they *could* try it out and change some specs to use the Geomerics.

But don't be hopeful. Despite them having at least 9 months since July to implement it, it's a huge undertaking (every single level's lighting had to be "ported" to the new lighting engine), and they probably already have too much issues to figure out.

However, since UE is already able to implement it, we should expect much prettier games from middle 2012 forward. Which is very cool and amazing.

[Arkitekt]

Oh but Raptor, PCs will always be too expensive and needing of too much care in relation to consoles.

So we can now buy a nice pc for 800 bucks. A good one for 1000. Okay, but isn't the PS3 300 bucks?

So we will be able to buy very nice pcs for 500 bucks. But won't consoles sell for 150-200 bucks by then?

Just sayin. I don't even own a console, but I do understand its alure.

[Abirn]

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

Mouse aiming > Consoles. 

Seriously how can anyone play a shooter on a console would drive me crazy.

[Grimmace]

Arkitekt wrote...

Just sayin. I don't even own a console, but I do understand its alure.

That's the only benefit  see. I update my PC a little each year. In the long run it's a lot of money compared to $300 and done for 5 years with no needed hardware upgrades to worry about. Every console is the same and software will work the same on all of them. Consoles are good for the price, but nothing that good compared to a PC. If you're cash strapped, a console would be the better buy a little after they are released.

I own a PS3, and I only use it for watching Blu-Rays and people think I'm crazy. I look at them and say games on it? Really, that's crazy. They don't seem to understand or want to listen.

[United_Strafes]

CBKeffer wrote...

They have already stated that ME3 will look the same across the board, regardless of platform.

Uh no it won't. My PC will make it look better than any console. Anyway it's the U3 engine only so much they can do. It's not gonna look like BF3, but anyone who's been playing that since launch knows how that's going. I want it to look good but more importantly, I DON'T WANT ALL THESE BF3 **** ups.

[Arkitekt]

What is the problem with BF3? It's an amazing engine. And Epic agrees with me, since they signed the contract with the Geomerics radiosity engine as well, so there.

[itsholidaybb]

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

This is easily the stupidest thing i've ever heard, PCs can do all that a console can do, better and much more.

What type of fantasy world do you live in?

[someone else]

started a thread on this a while ago - asking about DX11 - gist of responses was dx9 plus tweaks, better textures - console capabiliities being the limiting factor.

[Mr.Pink]

Soverain wrote...

marstor05 wrote...

PCs are living on borrowed time now. The next generation of consoles will be modular removing the need for a PC.

LOL, that will NEVER HAPPEN, consoles will always be inferior to pc, my pc will more than handle next generation games easily, 8 gigs ddr3, core i7 2600, msi 460gtx talon attack graphics card. now gen and next gen cant beat my pc.

how ever the real reason for a pc that powerful as such power isnt needed for gaming is 3D Computer Graphic RENDERING!

I'm not familiar with that graphics card, I got an Nvidia Gforce 9600 GT. Anyone know how they compare, cause his sounds pretty cool.