above average troll 7/10

believe me, you will be amazed when you see it play on you monitor. those 480p videos don't do it justice.

6/10

its the same as quakewars without downsized images

most textures in quakewars are 512x512, rage is all1024x1024

quakewars still looks high quality if you up your display

if you have 1024x1024 texture in a downsize material guide, and have downsize textures enabled in the options, the 1024x1024 will be downsized to 512x512

Hold on a second, you think the only difference between ETQW and RAGE in visual fidelity and artistic quality is 4x the texture resolution?

dude, check who you're talking to, he totally knows his shit.

dont know everything, i could`nt really care about the renderer, im just saying what i do know, there is nothing special about openGL 4 to make a huge detail enhancement to rendered images and linear mipmap levels

bollox,. setting idtech4 to use GL_mipmap_nearest makes the game look better, in quakewars it is force to use _linear because of megatextures and there is no real point in having the key in the config

im no expert but i doubt texture res is the only difference between idtech4 and 5

You obviously haven't tried militia.

id have a skill of making maps look good using only 10 textures..

you can put the renderimage size up in any idtech4 sdk in the render/render.h file and get as much detail as you want, above 1600x1200 and all 1024x1024 textures are near pixel perfect, but the camera eye joint needs to be fixed in the engine, so driver based mods cant upscale the render image size for anyone else to use, the view probaly gets messed up because someone has typed 800/600 instead of using the render.h defines, like alot of random areas in the drivers source

all of the glprogs scripts scripts might of had a tweak for opengl 4

engine wise there isnt much difference between quakewars and rage, the game was started to many years ago to have had a massive change, so id says doom 4 will be the big improvement

o ok

load up a map, only a few textures are used in most of them, most custom maps all look crap because there are no textures to use

in a nutshell, yes

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-13-...on-console

"So, while we're developing Rage on the PC, we forbid anybody from playing it on a keyboard and mouse until we've played it first on a console controller.

"We pull the keyboard and mouse out and put in a USB 360 controller, even on the development staff. That's not just the testers."

Porting to console from PC is old-world thinking, according to id.

"That was the way we did it in the past. Ultimately, we learnt that's not the way you should do it.

rofl

That's it. The last castle has fallen, welcome to the dark ages.

There you go friend, your first plus on ESR - remember this day!

Judgements: 319 made, 70 received

:(

epicsadface

It's one of those you don't get your ice cream before you've eaten your broccoli-things

Except that the ice cream is just more broccoli in this case.

but broccoli is tasty?

That has me more concerned for DOOM 4 than Rage, you can't control Doom Guy running at 100 mp/h and still aim a gun with a joystick. Please, for fuck sakes id, do not design Doom 4 so that you can.

"That was the way we did it in the past. Ultimately, we learnt that's not the way you should do it.

Doom 4 is fk'd.

probaly mean feel and gameplay,

usercmd inputs already have scale value for control pads. press a keyboard key and you walk or run in any game, if you use a joypad you can walk at different speeds upto the normal walking speed

with a joypad, you can have hidden little ledges etc, a keyboard will make you run over

im sure defrag players agree

who cares about defrag, if someone want rage defrag, they will have to code and not tweak

control movement in rage will be exactly the same as all other idtech games if you using a keyboard, you will either walk or run at 1 or the other max speed

if gameplay is based on keyboard control setup, you miss all of the extras because you cant stroll around like a RPG/FPS most console games are [but in thirdperson view], if you get to a rooftop, with a keyboard to get creep to the edge and look over, you will run off the edge if you hold walk down, with a joypad you control walk speed with the movement of the stick

PC gamers dont like console ports because they are usually dummed down, they are not dummed down they just have 100% extra cheese

the RPG console bit is what made turok 2 on the n64, the god of console FPS, while the pc verison was pure shit

im sure goldeneye players agree

golden eye has its flaws and just a FPS, turok 2 is more like tomb raider and other 3rd person games

the typical FPS has a set path, turok 2 you have to adventure around the whole map, which would probaly be good for doom 4 SP, and make MP like UT2k4

freedom fighter was a gg

maybe. turok failed on all platforms, on n64 turok 2 was one of the best games on n64, you controlled the pace you walk using the analog stick like in zelda and mario64

game dev obviously made the game for n64 and ported it to the pc

if you have imagination when making a game you can use it for more gameplay features and feel

id do not have imagination when making maps, they have been into quake for way too long

u should play jedi outcast/jedi academy, its q3 engine in star wars, 3rd person, etc

made by the kings of gamedev RAVEN

nope, quake 1 map packs were worthless, star wars sucks 100% balls along with the movies

you can play Q4 in thirdperson with Q43A, only thing i have never fixed are weapon muzzleflashes

"star wars sucks 100% balls along with the movies"

NO MORE PLUSES FOR YOU CUNT

not a trekkie, but voyager ownz it, from half way through season 1, when episodes start to be like movies and FX and the story gets darker and more b0rg

farscape is better too. but that got cheesie is the last few, the rest are all dark n deep space and stella artios, 2am viewing

star wars is a musical of whats out there, and years without proper light or fresh air

The last couple seasons of Voyager really go downhill up until the finale, like as soon as Neelix starts getting a more central role just skip to Endgame.

there is always farscape this rage hat is stolen from http://i.neoseeker.com/n/0/rageid.jpg

http://scapecast.org/media/IntroductionToFarscape/PilotJohn.jpg

and darth vader is a gimp http://trevmurphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009...orpius.jpg

and darth vader is a gimp http://trevmurphy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009...orpius.jpg

lmao

he`s not in it much, until the end of the end few episodes, just 5 or 10 mins here in random episodes

One thing I remember so distinctly from the original turok was how the final boss encounter was predominantly a melee fight, how it would rush you constantly and use his axe - made it a great experience!

find a copy of turok 2 on the pc, or n64 emulator and play it with a joypad, n64 version has alot better soundtrack if you smoke ya weed, for a slow paced FPS

fastest emu is http://www.pj64-emu.com/
download n64 rom http://www.coolrom.com/roms/n64/1090/Turok_2_-_Seeds_of_Evil.php

dont forget wipeout, if you dont have a ps3, n64 emu is the next best thing for a time trail battle http://www.coolrom.com/roms/n64/1176/Wipeout_64.php

that hollenshead guy was always the dumbest link of the id-chain, so #care

omg... the guy works on business side, id has to create buzz to attaract media attention, which often leads to making speculative announcements...

? that's what i'm talking about

i don't see anything wrong with him, he just trying to promote a product... he is not a developer you know...

he is the fucking worse ever.

if you want eye candy play Crysis 1.

thought you were talking about METSU :(

Seems QL will be my last id game by the looks of it

Most likely me too.

sadly yes

well no wonder, you just want a tweaked q3 cpma. a niche of a niche market.

The only version of Q3 i ever played is QuakeLive
so that statement goes out the window

all i want is a good game and id obvioussly lost its touch
and all i want from id is deathmatch games yes

heh nice graphics for a console game maybe..

let's take a look at how graphics evolved over the last couple of years:
we take crysis as a starting point because it probably still is the best-looking game out there (not entirely texture-wise, but the physics and the water are still unbeaten in such an open world)
crysis' release was at the end of 2007, so 4 years before rage gets released. so when we look back 4 years, the games released at that time were the likes of deus ex invisible war and prince of persia - sands of time

now compare the evolution from 2003s games to crysis and from crysis to rage: you seriously think it has nice graphics?


note that in my opinion crysis is a bad game, looks awesome, but is boring as hell

Crysis is boring because of the graphics though.

The only way they get graphics that good (at that time) is by churning out endless terrains with a shit load of procedural based techniques where you have very limited input of design, which is good for producing a shitload of quick, free art that looks good, but when you scratch the surface, you realise that the design/work ethic is so automated you lose any of the focused design, that make interior based FPS games so much more engaging.

I don't think you can compare the art, Rage obviously has far more custom content, then again, Crysis is 3-4 years old, perhaps a fairer test would be to compare it against the new one.
which looks a fairer test.

Rage will have id's usual ATD. I think it will play pretty mediocre though. But I think with graphics like that you can get away with it.

Its like those 3D films, most of them are shit, but you can get your money's worth in terms of immersion. So that is why I'll buy Rage.

SO PLAY THAT SHIT ON CONSOLE THEN LOL

but consoles cant match a pc's ability for max gfx!

I think the PS3 might in this case... imo carmack has a bit of a hardon for the ps3 nowadays

ps3 is nowhere close to what the latest pc is.

The ps3 is £200 new.

Try and build a computer for the same price and run the latest game on them both side by side. The Ps3 will own it hard.

What you're saying is if you spend 2-3-400% more on something you get something better. I'm sure those doing Economics has a fancy buzzword for it!

It doesn't really mean anythring ,especially as devs are developing the game for consoles, therefore meaning that the gains between pc and console are getting closer becuae its pointless developing something these days that will not work on the PS3 or 360. If an engine scales that hugely, the chances are the thing its scaling is nothing that important.

I.E. ithe PC might do realtime sub surface scattering or have a better water system. And the ps3 version won't.

They are not deal breakers IMO.

PCs do more than just play games, and have a far larger selection of the games that they do have - including much of what is consoles to begin with. Hell, I can still play DOS games on my PC, whereas consoles aren't keeping backwards compatibility.

In addition to that, they have the ability to be incrementally upgraded with smaller fees. I haven't upgraded my processor in 4-5 years, and the base PC cost me around $350. That was shortly before the PS3 even came out, and it was far more expensive. By the time I will have to make any significant upgrades to my PC, console users will have gone through multiple console replacements (due to single part malfunctions), and will soon have to pay for an entirely new generation of console.

Consoles are actually more expensive over time, and more expensive when new.

Most people have access to a computer that they can do "more on".If they don't, they can buy one for 50-100 dollars or access one at school, library, or get a free hand me down, if they do not have a computer in this day and age they obviously have no intention of doing more even if you do.

The majority of things under the "more than" catergory are not related to 3D performance so are irrelevant.

I can do everything I do on a pc from 6 years ago I can on my quad core today. The only thing I can't do is play modern games with nice graphics. The rest of the stuff I can do is just a bit quicker and often less than you think due to the old pc having less hungry software.

Which is less than can be said for those who bought an xbox 360 from 2005 and are still enjoying amazing looking games today due to the fact that because the hardware has remained the same the devs have optimised the software which result in a silent boost.

So they are not more expsnive at all becuase unlike the pc market, the console market have the advantgae of working on the same hardware for years so they can extract free performance.

So even if you could build a pc with the same level of hardware performance as a 360 or PS3 for the same price, you still wont get it to actuallly run the same game with the same quality of graphics becuae the pc market is less efficient and just expect you to upgrade. You can't do that on a console, it has to work, so devs make it work.

Of course it depends on the game and engine, but if we say a nice high end one from Crytek or Epic, it would be a no no.
All those moving trees, transparent grass etc, outdoor terrains etc.

Perfromace can be had in software or hardware, and consoles often get free boosts every year from software that pc owners HAVE to fork out for in hardware.

not to mention ps3 graphics card is fucking 5-6-7 years old.

That's the thing - most people already have a desktop PC that is MORE than enough as a platform for gaming, and all they need is a video card, and potentially a new power supply. I bought this desktop 4-5 years ago (Athlon dual core 4400+ @ 2.3ghz), and I can still run modern games at either maximum, or near maximum settings. I have a Radeon HD 5770, which will probably still be capable of playing games for another 3-5 years at reasonable settings, and it has a double lifetime warranty. Even if you argue that a person might not have a PC, they could buy a 5-year old PC for less than a PS3, and end up MAYBE spending a little more with a video card, but they would gain a ton more functionality, it would take longer to become obsolete, and it could still be upgraded.

The PS3 has a Geforce 6800, which is quite behind the times as far as architecture goes. The PS3's peak capabilities were already surpassed by mid-range PCs almost a year ago or more. Now, in just a few short years (I'm guessing late next year), you'll have to buy a new XBOX/PS3, and you'll have to spend an entire $700 (if the PS3 was any example) - and that's only if your console does not die on you first.

In exchange for such limitations, you have a limited selection of games, an outdated media platform, and no other functionality.

You're missing out the one important thing which justifies my point, even though I explained.

BECAUSE the devs have the luxury of working on the same hardware for 4-5 years, they can extract things out of it which are the EQUIVALENT of upgrading the hardware on a pc upto around 40%, which is years worth of progress and hundreds of dollars of cilicon. So while the hardware might have X amount of more power under a typical threaded applications like Folding, that goes out of window in gaming.

You can't measure those things because they are done in art/code, even engines are being written and optmised and adapted to a particular setup which improve year on year.

you don't get this on the PC BECAUSE there are so many configureations and a constant update the code and art are never that optimised.

So while the PS3 might be, on paper, the same as a good pc from 2005/2006, the results in game will be different.

Spec up a pc like I did below from nothing in your head (let's leave the OS out of it which costs money if you do it legally)

I'm not talking about raw grunt for benchmarking, I'm talking real world, side by side in game results.

Look at GT5 on the PS3, its a work of art. I had a quadcore q6600 and a 4850, that struggled to run crysis at more than a sold 20 frames per second. Its not all about power.

No, the only benefit of the hardware is that it doesn't have to run a full operating system. Even with all that slack, current generation consoles were still outpaced by mid-range PCs a long time ago. Consoles have already peaked, and it's no surprise that people are complaining about stagnant graphics recently.

EA even spoke about this today. They DO spend extra time taking advantage of the PC capabilities, which is only logical since they're going to have to get experience working with the features for when they are ported to the next generation of consoles.

Here is £200.

Go and build a new PC from parts and run crysis on it.
And put the closest version you have to that game on the PS3.

Then make it as attractive and cool and marketable as a ps3.
It won't happen.

I don't trust EA. What I do know is if you have 4-5 years to work on the same hardware, you're GOING to get real boosts out of it that you won't get on something which is less defined.

It doesn't matter if you trust EA, since they work on successful games, and you don't. Working on the same hardware brings diminishing returns. The ONLY hardware benefit that consoles have is that they don't run an OS. That's it.

£200 is about $300, which is about what I paid for my desktop 5 years ago. The same parts would probably be half as expensive now, but even keeping that, and adding just a $150 graphics card, you have not only totally dominated the capabilities of a PS3, but you're still at least on par with the next generation of consoles - and you don't even have to upgrade! I'm not sure how cheap the 9000 series nvidia cards are anymore, but you can probably get them as cheap as $60. While it would need to turn some settings down on next-gen games, it would still outpace a PS3 on current generation games.

In 2 years time, my PC will still be gaming. Your PS3 will be a paperweight.

pc is not really relevant in the broader videogame market anymore, at least for singleplayer games. i don't mind playing any of the recent sp games on my console, even though i have a nice pc setup.

Steam has more concurrent users than WoW, and is still growing. I'd say that PC is not only still a major player, but with the big shift towards digital distribution, will soon be the only player.

you're a fool man.
Consoles do also have access to digital content.
The next generation of consoles will also have the option to buy the games digitally and store them on a harddrive (harddrive costs nothing nowadays, how much is 1 TB, 50 $?) ....

also bout the hardware, I guess you are some n00b concerning gaming history, take the SNES and compare the first super mario with donkey kong country, and then you will see what it means to get more out of the hardware in a given period of time, and exactly this is happening right now in the console market, just take a look at the frostbite engine ...

I didn't say that they didn't, but that they still rely on main distribution (and playing of the game) through physical media. I was merely pointing out that consoles will experience a lot more piracy when the main distribution is digital, which will likely be next generation.

Donkey Kong Country wasn't anything advanced - it was pre-rendered. It was trickery, and people fell for it.

Like i keep saying, performance can be achieved in many ways, quite often on a pc a dev will not care as much, but on a ps3, they have to make it run well and look good and they do this in art, and having the advantage of spending 4-5 years on a bit of hardware you would be surprised what they extract in that time.

They have to be efficient in order to use a console, since they are working with fairly limited resources. That doesn't change the fact that the more time spent on the console, the less valuable your advances will be. Devs have to spent more time developing for a console, and spending more time for a smaller return is generally not in the interest of any profit-driven company.

Just about every modern game for the past year has drawn complaints from the console crowd that the graphics weren't up to par with the PC equivalent.

Let's jsut agree to diagree becaue deep down I have no bias, I don't even own a console. I see what you say, but Im simply saying there are MANY ways to get performance in a game AND for the mass market a piece of hardware need to be...

Sexy
Small
Shiny
Marketable
Foolproof.

A PS3 is basically a PC anyway, without the OS.

Its not like the old days where consoles have real unique features. PC market shot itself in the foot ironically by the "other things" you talk about.

As soon as you allow people to do what they want in the form of an OS, you run into the huge problem with piracy, the PC market has already proved this and the only way around it is server based games where you essentialy steam out content to the player in bits and bobs.

I like how things are anyway, who wants a ten million Halo players calling you a cheat because they can;t comprehend how far ahead pc players because of games like quake.

Its worked out nicely.

P.S.
"Just about every modern game for the past year has drawn complaints from the console crowd that the graphics weren't up to par with the PC equivalent."

yes and how much do those computers cost to build?
A mid budget graphics card costs more than an entire Xbox 360.

Like I said, site down with £200, build an entire PC from scratch, the Pc you end up with WILL NOT be the one that is running these new games on high. you also forget the hardware in these things are YEARS old, they have done an amazing job of getting close.

What console gamers are doing is saying..

That 100k ferrari from 2001 is better than my 10,000 dollar honda from 2006.
Its a stupid and futile argument which is only there because most of them are clueless children who have no concept of how things work or cost in the real world.

These are the same people who will accuse you of cheating if you beat them in a videogame beyond the level of ownage they deem as accetpable.

You were talking about getting something on par with a PS3, which would be less than $60. For $150 right now, you can get a high end card that will last you for another 2-3 years at highest settings, and likely 5-6 at lower settings. Exactly what other features of a full featured PC do you think that consoles have?

Any performance benefit you try to get from a console will benefit a PC, but there is no magic that comes from working on the same hardware. Not only have consoles barely improved in graphical quality in the 5 years that they have been out, but several modern games actually have some performance issues even when attempting to scale them down for the inferior hardware.

Piracy is already almost as bad on consoles as it is on PC, and the only thing really holding it back is the fact that consoles are still using outdated physical media to operate their games - and even that is becoming a thing of the past.

Nobody buys a console for how it looks.

People do buy consoles based on how they look and are marketed, just as they buy games with good graphics, especially when gaming is becoming more mainstream and being bought by more and more people who buy things based on looks.

You're also wrong about about the benefits affecting pc,Nvidia/ATI cards, various chipsets, various hardware configurations all eat development time and ensure the game cannot be optimised as much as it has to work on so many possible configs.

If you've been working on the same hardware ps3/36- for 3-4 years, you'll be much more efficient at producing something to work on it becuase you have two variations vs several dozen/hundred.

Theres a constant pressure on console devs to produce better looking games with what they have, unlike the pc market where they have to make stuff work on older and newer harder.
High Medium Low settings are pretty crude.

regardless, piracy is stil more of a problem on the PC than it is on the consoles, larely to do with many console owners not being as clued up. They might get there in time, but sony/ms/nintendo are obviously keen to ride that train for as long as possible.

you still won't build a pc from scratch For 360/ps3 money) that will run games aswell as cutting edge ps3, on top of this most of the best game devs in teh world no longer make games for pc.
For a all the reasons I talked about. So even if you could, you wouldn't have all the best games, which is why pc is mostly suited to things like MMO. Even idsoftware has ditched it as their main focus.

you have to do waht the majority markets want.

There was tons of criticism for how the xbox looked, and it didn't stop it from selling a fuckton of units.

nvidia used nearly the same architecture through almost 3 generations. Things don't change as much as you'd like to imagine, and they are specifically designed with backwards compatibility in mind for wide support.

If you work on the PS3 for 3-4 years, you'll be slightly better than if you worked on it for 1 year. Where you get this fantasy that there is untold efficiency capable of extracting from any platform is absurd. You said that you don't even own a console, so you're clearly uninformed on the fact that graphical improvement has been marginal, and performance loss has been steadily increasing.

It costs more to pay a dev to work on marginal increases than it would to simply ignore the issues, and suffer performance loss - a choice which seems to be unanimous among console developers.

My base PC at current prices... $160, or £111. Video card slightly better than PS3? $70, or £48. That system will still likely last into the next generation, and that's just keeping it on par with the PS3. Current generation games can be played at high/ultra easily. Unlike the PS3, it will still be able to play next gen games at lower settings, while you'll have to buy the PS4 in order to do the same. Bump that video card up to something mid-range right now, and you're future-proof for quite a while - still only spending SLIGHTLY more, and getting exponentially more functionality.

Xbox sold because microsoft came into the market with a long term strat, knowing they would lose money on hardware and get it back through software and bought up lots of AAA developers and turned many of them into shit (Rare being a good example).
This was never going to fail, its not a typical case.
Also the market has become much more commerial in the last few years thanks to the wii.

If you think programmers stop making gains after a year you're wrong. Hugely. If you get a new dev kit, its dumb to think you'll get it fully sussed out in 12 months. Many of them are still finding their feet for the first 2 years including the art. Its usually on the second and third game do they really start exploring it.

my computer from several years ago (q6600 + HD4850) struggled to play Crysis on high with all the settings. Its was about 30 FPS at best and that setup was much more powerful than the PS3, so how you claim your setup which is a fair bit slower than mine can play current games when I'm talking about a 3-4 year old game is nonsense.

There is simply no special marketability of the visual aspect that can possibly be argued. Not only do most PCs have equal or better visual aspects, but consoles like the xbox have proven that people only care about vanity when they have nothing else to complain about.

Programmers make gains on platforms that change. It's not like programmers had to learn a brand new assembly language to start developing on PS3 - it wasn't some alien thing that nobody had done before. The main reason anyone had any issue with it was the multi-core processing, of which most gains had limited impact for gaming. Please, point out a place where the PS3 has made significant leaps in efficiency.

Your performance issues were your own.

There is simply no special marketability of the visual aspect that can possibly be argued.

Go and tell your findings to a marketing department. I'm sure they'll have agood laugh.

Not only do most PCs have equal or better visual aspects, but consoles like the xbox have proven that people only care about vanity when they have nothing else to complain about.

Fraid not. The consoles get a free boost in performance due to many factors that teh pc do not. But hye, just pop another card in there $$$

Programmers make gains on platforms that change...

No, they make gains from spending enough time on set configuration which allows them to optmise and get more of out it. Artists do too and many of the best devs are not making pc games. On something as complex as a videogame and engines, the more time you spend on it, the more efficient it becomes. Its the same with anything. Artists get better, coders get better, they find secrets and short cuts, much of that is missed when you're trying to keep track of so many other factors that come with the pc market.

Your performance issues were your own.

No, they were that of the hardware which were CONSIDERABLY more powerful than that of a PS3, yet having just tried (a 4 year old game) not only are the graphics not that impressive anymore, but I'm still struggling to maintain 30 FPS on hardware at least 30% faster than the PS3 on a 4 year old game. Go and run this game on the PC equiv of PS3 hardware and see what happens, you'll struggle to make 10 FPS.



Crysis from 2007 at 30 FPS-I just tried it. I have seen ps3 games looking better than this at better frame rates.
Its on high quality, with no<< anti alias, 1024x768. Its not that impressirve anymore.

So to answer your question about showing you an example of performance improving over time, I would say despite using crappier hardware, the ps3 can still produce better looking games at better fps at what was regarded at the time as the best looking game on the market on the PC which evern 3-4 years ago is more powerful than PS3.
If you want another example, go and look at GT5.
My hardware in this pc is much better than the PS3, but as I said, its not all about raw power. making stuff for consoles has benefits pc market can't match, that's why they became the dominat format.

So your setup is even slower than mine, yet I'm supposed to believe you're running the latest games well. I really don't think so.

Marketing departments will tell you the same thing - we are not nearly to a point where vanity has any sway of a gaming platform.

Spending time tweaking an engine will bring exponentially less benefit than simply making a new engine with your changes, and newer features. In fact, it wouldn't be all that bad on a PC, where hardware is always evolving, but since the PS3 is stuck on the same shitty hardware, you're stuck with essentially the performance you got on day 1.

PS3 is on a Geforce 6800 - it only runs the game because it does not have to run an OS. There is no magic behind the scenes here. Your performance issues remain your own - maybe you should learn how to operate a computer.

http://gamingbolt.com/crysis-2-ps3-vs-xbox-36...comparison

Here is an example of a modern game, and how badly they had to scale it down just to make it work on consoles. There is simply no contest, and there never has been. Consoles will always just be a shadow of a PC, but without all the extra features.

Feel free to waste your money on a console, though. It might take you a few years to save up, but you definitely have what it takes to be a blind console supporter.

I can operate a pc fine thanks, when you consider the ps3 hardware is about 4-5 years old, I think its pretty amazing how close it is. Go and run that game on the PC with similar hardware to the PS3 and it'll be unplayable.

As for operating a pc, sorry, I proved you wrong with the screenies, but if you want to loop back to "other person clueless" to protect ego then that's fine, we both know its probably why the closest you ever got to working with games is talking about them on forum.
you were the kid that said his NES was faster than the SNES and that's fine becaue I know people like you end up in an attic.

I was operating silicon graphics when you were discovering your first errection. I know you like to think you know a lot about games and graphics, but you're simply out matched :).

Please carry on with that mentality, Its the one that keeps you where you are IRL where you belong.

On a game forum talking about things you can only dream of and never be a part of :).

Enjoy your 2005 super computer.

Did you even take a good look? The detail, reflection, shadows, and lighting are all much worse. In motion, it's actually even WORSE. Even with it toned down so much, consoles still have framerate issues.

Yeah, a rig from 2005 that's capable of playing games at high to ultra quality. One of us is doing it wrong. I know you get jealous of even the most simple things, but this one is pretty silly. You must have overpaid for your PC, and have no knowledge on how to really use it. It must suck, since it'll take you a few years to save up for another one. Seriously, consider consoles or a mac - they're right up your alley.

I posted a video to highlight your stupidity even further.

5 yeard old ps3 hardware, vs a modern pc that has a videocard that costs more than an entire PS3 alone.

I never said the pc did worse graphics , I said the PS3 was hugely impressive for the spec of the hardware and its price.

I have i7 quadcores thanks with Nvidia 460 GTX.
And my first computer was a silicon graphics o2 running Irix, you know those crappy things they used to replace the workstations for things like Jurassic park, Terminator and every cgi film ever made before pc's got good and cheap.

Enjoy your self conving retorts, I'm sure they work well againsttthe average game forum user. To me, they are most amusing.

If you were to take the hardware behind any PC, and make it a platform for a console, it would be capable of games far beyond anything we can even imagine right now. It's nothing special to do with the hardware, or super efficiency - it's simply the lack of a need to go through an OS. The PS3 manages 30FPS on modern games that have been watered down, and suffers additional frame loss during active scenes.

If you struggle on modern games with that kind of hardware, it's either improperly installed, damaged, underpowered, or your PC is full of viruses/spyware/etc... Knowing you, likely a combination of them all. Consoles were made specifically for people like you. Sure, you spend more money over time, and your don't get quite as good of a product, but you only have to understand how to put the disk in!

Didn't read that, just one more laugh at your expense as its already over. Just found a benchmark for crysis as I wanted to the social aspect.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7426/crysisgpu1024kt4.jpg

With an 8800gt
q6600 @ 2.4 GHZ (Stock)
29.22 FPS

My results in 2011 with near identical setup.
http://www.esreality.com/files/placeimages/2011/82811-Jamerio.jpg

Oh surpsie surpsie I was right and depsite being over 3 years old is performing just as it was 3-4 years ago.

That GFX card was overclocked too. Though err, I guess he didn't know how to operate a pc too.

Night night :)

Who was talking about an 8800? Shit, you could probably get one of those right now for even less than I was estimating with a geforce 9 series. 3-4 years ago, you'd be spending $600 on a PS3, and the 8800 would still have been a better choice.

Even buying used/refurbished parts at a greater discount is more sensible than buying a console. A single faulty piece of hardware requires you to buy an entirely new console. While XBOX 360 is certainly worse than PS3, the life of an active console is fairly short. All of my PC parts last for MANY years, and the only one that tends to die is the video card. That being said, all of my video cards have at least a lifetime warranty, and my current card has a double lifetime warranty.

No matter how you try to justify it, you just can't compete in price or value of a PC.

I'd love to know the spec of this magic pc you seem to have that is 5-6 years old yet plays modern games on high/ultra settings.

Most games rely mostly on the video card, so you don't need more than an older processor. Specs above, if you had read.

a 2.3 dual core seems a bit of a stretch, i have essentially the same vid card (gts 450). when i had a 2.8ghz athlon x2 games lagged a bit on high/+. I now have a 3.2ghz athlon x3 and only very high lags me (video card bottleneck).

have been/still am using xp/7 dual boot. performance in dx9 games really doesnt change on OS

Windows 7 64bit here. Intense physics-based activity can have an impact, but for the most part, CPU seems to be one of the least important factors for gaming. Memory/hard drive/video card/power supply are all far more important for the vast majority of games.

i'm using ddr3 1600. i'm guessing due to the 2.3 dual you're using ddr2 667/800?

i do agree, cpu bottleneck isn't really that big in most newer games.

I got a 3-4yr old comp that plays pretty much all modern games on high details. why is that special?

ur fucking retarded.

run any ps3 game in ultra extreme graphics at full HD. oh wait it wont or cant and wont look anything like the pc version. get fancy all u want but stfu when it comes to the real shit nigga.

"like the pc version".

You still fail to show any concept of price Vs performace.

The argument is in relation to the price.

Go and build a pc from scratch for the same price as an xbox 360 or PS3 and see how well it runs.

Let's aim for mid performance.

CASE (30+)
GPU (70)
HARD DRIVE (30)
OS (DOH!)
RAM (30)
CPU (75)
DVD ROM (10)
MOTERBOARD (45)

30+70+30+30+75+10+45=£290

When the factor the free performance boost the PS3 games get, that you would have to spend in hardware to obtain on the pc, the final figure will be close to £350

The FPS is not half as bad as you think, if you spend most of your life playing quake at 125 fps with 120 hz refresh its EASY to be critcal of frames on anything.

But oncee you adapt to the lower frames/refresh, you can still have a lot of fun with it so its nowhere near the same deal.
Especialyl as most of those players have not played a game that smooth.

Trust me, I know everything you know now at least 5+ years ago :)

who cares? why are you talking about price 2 me? are u poor? u still fail. pc power > ps3 or any console EVERYDAY OF DA WEEK.












ILL FUCK U TILL U LOVE ME.

tbh PS3 games look better on my 3D Samsung TV than games on my PC simply because the $3000 TV can display more colours than my shitty TN panel 120hz monitor. GT5 looks better than even Crysis on highest detail. Weird but true. I blame the shitty TN panel monitor :D

Currently I have i7-875K / GTX 580

But the smoothness is far better on your TN panel.
Also, you could use a PVA/IPS panel on your PC :) Not 120hz but you could get 75 with some of them.

ye its smoother. Dunno if i can go back to 60/75hz. Still waiting for cheap PVA/IPS 120hz monitors :D

But, does it have good GRAPHICS?!

metsu will own.

metsu MUST own: http://www.justin.tv/dreamhackql4#/w/1352415648

I feel like it will own my wallet, even if it happens to be crap in the end :<

ROFLMAO at Jamerio and vedic - they are like two particles attracted to one another - destined to forever tango.

Like retards.

They have so much time on their hands.