What bothers me the most at the moment, there is so much focus on technology these days. I loved the days when games were about games and originality. Today's games are just remakes of older games with improved visuals. Creativity is stalled in the industry cos everybody is so concerned about this damn technology, im sure the industry is laughing their asses of. Gaming could be so much richer, if a lot of the gamers didnt use their technolgy as a strap-on for their ego's.
u know pc and console bullshit is stupid bc they all have there pro and cons. a console is made for games most of the time and a pc does almost everything why cant ppl see that.
I'll rather play in DX9 with a higher fps than in DX11 with lower. There aren't big differences in those, especially in Dirt 2 where the difference isn't even noticeable.
Please all of you PS3 people and Xbox people get out. This stuff is not for you and will never be. And for you people who have both not one word about these prebuilt outdated home systems.
@nooblet911 my fuckin ass dude... you think ps3's made Beowulf in the amount of time that desktop workstations with like 8 tesla units inside rendered it? cmon dude. the cell engine is good, but outdated for anything the pc is capable of today, the RSX is the equivelant to a 7800m GS from nvidia. my computer runs around a ps3 by at least 3x if not 4x.
@nooblet911 no, THEY MAKE A GREAT GAME! have you seen the bumps of texture of walls? omg i wanna touch them! and have you seen smooth edges of building and not like the jagged edges you see on consoles that you can cut yourself on? XD no im kidding. but PC is more capable, it was there first, its always 2 or 3 steps ahead of the home entertainment console, its for true nerds.
@nooblet911 Yeah, that's really, really sad. Watch this : watch?v=7hEhU1q_BWw&feature=related. If you seriously think that that shitty little console from 8 years ago can run a game that has better graphics than Crysis, a game that requires a $2000 dollar gaming system to run on full graphics, then you sir are retarded. I seriously hope you were mistaken when you made this comment.
which comment are you reffering to? and yes, I think okami on the ps2 has more asthetic graphics than crysis. graphics aren't only advanced effects. and don't call me a retard you stupid kid.
@nooblet911 Ok, so maybe in terms of design and fantasy style beauty, Crysis isn't the best, but in terms of all graphical effects, it beats any other game so far. The shaders, textures, lighting, subsurface scattering, reflection, refraction, explosions etc are all totally state of the art. And don't dismiss my comment because I'm young, because I know what I'm talking about.
@nooblet911 Then in that case, I aplogogise. I misunderstood you comment and never meant any offence. I thought you were trying to say that the graphics were TECHNICALLY better in Okami :D
if course not, I just get a little pissed off when people claim that a game is prettier based solely on tech. like I said before, advanced graphics don't necesairly make a pretty game. I've seen many unreal engine 3 based games that looked pretty bad (all brown and crap).
@nooblet911 Yeah, I agree with you on that one. Crysis looks good based on the ordinary, but not much more. Unfortunately though, a lot of the more imaginatve games are becoming outdated and new ones aren't as technically as good either, which is what (sadly) a lot more people go for at first sight.
@nooblet911 If you think the graphics on the PS2 is better than crysis maxed out, then you haven't seen it.. Do you troll?.. Graphics alone doesn't make a game good, i'll agree with that. But the Graphics on PS2 does NOT beat Crysis.. heck, there isn't even a sigle PS3 game that beat crysis graphics.. However, there are pc games such as Metro 2033, just cause 2 and many more that looks much better than crysis.. Mafia 2 will also look outstanding. Graphics gives a game life, but isn't everything.
it's not a matter of tech but of aesthetics. from a tech perspective, a ps2 game like okami is terrible compared to crysis on a good pc. but from a aesthetic perspective, it's amazing and clearly more artistic than crysis will ever be.
of course the pc has better graphics, but do the realism-imitating games have any artistic value? maybe some, but cysis surely not. it's a nice tech demo, though.
@stovnergutt On the contrary. Graphics doesn't make a game, a game. Console games are like they were made for retards in wheelchairs. Look at Minecraft. It's superior to ALL current games out there, made by a single man, with graphics from the 90's.
@hardstyle905 Superior according to whom? you?.. There are NO interaction in the game other than placing and destroying boxes. It's extremely repetitive... Awful animation, no story, bad graphics, repetitive gameplay and music. The list is endless..What makes the game good? Nothing.. Is it a good game? No.. Is it different? Hell yea.. That's about it. The game is just different and therefore "feels" like something new. Yet i do recall Lego games from the past similar to this...
@hardstyle905 I seriously wouldn't say it's superior to all games. It's not even really a game, but rather a sandbox that just lets you do what you want to with blocks. Now this isn't a criticism. I love minecraft. But to say it's superior to half life 2, portal, starcraft etc. is folly in my opinion.
My God, get off your damn soapbox, I have both consoles and sure they can't pull off eyecandy like this but at least I'm getting better than 0.63 fps! =^_^=
Come on, PC look great in every way. I have a Ps3 and if you compare any game, ps3 loses. Ok, uncharted looks great, ut if uncharted were on PC, th PC version wins... for a lot.
this is REAL TIME raytracing. PS3 raytracing demos never came close to this level of detail; they used 3 PS3 to get aprox 1FPS at a simple model/Scene, and dont get me started on if GT5 looks better/real than this and if it's being "rendered" at 1080p
LOL at trying to compare 5 year old hardware to a brand new, GPGPU monster, with 448+ core design.
and I'm a ATI fan, but please, show more respect.
So you believe sonys Nvidia gpu can do raytracing better than the latest Nvidia card 3 years later & intel cpu advancements?? lol they also told u game would run at 120 fps and that gt5 was full 1080p!! lmao!!
1º) 1080p, 60 FPS, and what about level of AA & Vsync ?
2º) DIRT 1 on PC, 2560 x 1600, 60 FPS. :) (or Race Driver GRID or DIRT 2)
Have u seen on PS3 how "well" runs Mirror Edge, Devil May Cry 4, DIRT 1 or 2, Wolfenstein, FEAR 2 or Batman AA? 1280 x 720p, AA x 4 & 30 FPS maximun on last 3 games.
Prices of games and mono bazar apart. PS3 is a bad inversion nowdays in terms of hardware, because of the GPU.
i known that multiplat game sucks, for obvius reason... but i'm speaking about PS3 Exclusive... and about AA in GT5... it use MLAA performed by the Cell, WAY WAY better than any current PC GPU AA.
ok!!!! PC games can hit up to 100+ Fps has up to 2 gbs of of gpu memery, Quad core i7s with hyper threading, can have up to 24 gbs of ram, can do higher res games way higher than 1080p that u never will see until ps5!! Doesn't need blu ray for games or high def movies!! ! Oh and Gt5 will run @ 1280x1080 which is not really full HD 1080p!!! 1920×1080 is full HD 1080p look it up your on the internet!! Sony just told u that becuase they are aware that console fanboys are unaware of the latest tech
anyways, you have got to know that consoles are inferior to PC Graphics Cards.
even if it could render faster, PC graphics cards have the ability to increase Anisotropic Filtering, and Anti Aliasing to 16X, whereas most PS3 games are at 0XAA and 4XAF
and Consoles are using an older Shader Model version, and an outdated API (DirectX9), PC uses DirectX11)
you can see special effects left out for console, like Modern Warfare 2, they had to disable the blood on the screen. lol
you can also run at much higher resolutions like 1600p with PC, and with Console MOST games are running at 720p
PC graphics cards are doing much more work.
there's a reason Crysis never went to Console, I certainly wouldn't want to put a game on console if I was the owner of either console companies, and I knew it would look like crap in comparison to PC, that's like bad advertising.
and looking at the games, the ps3 does draw impressive graphics (check out uncharted 2, killzone 2, gran turismo 5 prologue, ect.), even if 'just' at 720p (1080p at best)
besides, most of the ps3 exclusive games will never see a pc release (you will have to wait for emulators to be written which can take more years)
it's actually about both, would you like to have a system that had the graphics seen on the game "E.T" but had 10,000 games, or would you want a system that has 1 game, but that game has insane graphics?
I really wouldn't want neither, but PC is the sweet spot for me, many times ppl told me "That game will never go to PC" and it does, like Gears of War for example.
funny you mention Emulators, that actually gives PC MUCH MORE playability than PS3 does.
and let's be fair now, PC has exclusives that PS3 and 360 don't have, so it's not really a good argument to pick.
overall I would say PC is a better system, what PC lacks for games (Which isn't that much really) is made up for with being able to mod games, and create and play on custom maps, and use custom weapons, and being able to play in 3D on 3 screens, while watching a Bluray movie on another screen, and burning a Bluray movie, and listening to music, all at one time.
oh well, not good enough reason to get a console for me, the major pro's of PC outweigh it's minor cons, not like it matters anyways, you'll never see Crysis on consoles.
I just did the math, and based on Gamespot's list of games, PC accounts for 12,878 Games, PS3 accounts for 985, and Xbox 360 accounts for 2,104 games.
PC has 6.1 times more games than Xbox 360, and 13.07 times more games than PS3.
Overall PC has a much bigger selection of Games, than Consoles.
and Crysis 2 on Consoles is not going to look nearly as good, I don't know why people would expect it to, it's not an almighty piece of equipment that pervades all space, and time or something.
We have video cards in PC's that are much better than what can be found in Consoles.
if what's found in consoles was the same as what PC's were using 4 years ago, then it doesn't make any sense to keep releasing video cards.
who knows, maybe crysis 2 on the pc will look much like the console versions just with some aditional effects. maybe they are making crysis 2 primary for consoles.
as pc hardware progresses, so do console developers learn to use console hardware better. gran tuismo 5 is said to use about 80 percent of ps3's power for example. and thats pretty impressive actually, considering how complex development for the cell processor is. the cell is much more advanced than any pc cpu you can buy now, just that its hard to use all its power
PC processors, and Console processors are designed to work completely different.
and you get to a point, where it really doesn't matter which ones better anyways, if the street sign says 50 mph, and your car can do 200 mph, let's say your car wouldn't let you go faster than the speed limit, then the extra speed isn't going to count for anything.
your car could go 10,000 mph, and mine could go 50 mph, and we'd still get the same place at the same time.
the typical pc fan thinks that if he buys the latest graphics card he can expect the best graphics. but thats not completely true. while you can have very sharp and smooth graphics, you won't necesairly have the best-looking games. the best-looking games last year was uncharted 2 on the ps3, despite runing only in 720p res
also GTA IV has ZERO anti-aliasing, this is because it was on Console first, and most games on Consoles run at 0XAA, and at best 4XAA, this is why people complain about getting a crap port over to PC, when it's first on PC it looks great, and then when it's ported to console, people don't notice it, because they are use to not having any Antialiasing, and whatnot, so there's no complaints on their side.
let me put it this way: of course modern pcs are more powerful than consoles, but I'm yet to see a action adventure with cut scenes the quality uncharted 2 has and a racing game with cars the quality gran turismo 5 has. and graphics are not the only important thing. things like gameplay, level design and fun matter too.
lol, cutscenes and intro's are not important, because those are pre rendered, you could have the shittiest looking game in history, have the best looking cutscene or intro you have ever seen.
like this
watch?v=8Rveg9MxCYw
comparing gameplay is irrelevant, since that's identical on both systems, and controlling a game is much better with a keyboard & mouse, with the exception of racing games, and games like Resident Evil 5, FPS's tho, it's PC FTW.
well let me say it this way: I won't be able to play games like uncharted 2, gran turismo 5, god of war III (not to my taste, though), heavy rain (also, but it will be good), the last guardian, zelda and mario on the pc and those games will be excellent (not only in my opinion)
if you're satisfied with your pc shooters, strategies and mmos, fine with me
lol, I'd rather have a GREAT PC over a console, cuz you can play nearly all the games that you can play on console, in Stereoscopic 3D, and completely customize the games, and have better graphics, and play with more people online, and listen to music at the same time, while playing a Bluray movie on another monitor, while burning a BluRay movie.
being completely realistic, it's not like Consoles have 50% of the games that aren't released on PC, it's more like 1% of the games aren't released on PC.
most of the time major releases are released on PC as well, the only reason why Killzone 2 for example isn't on PC, is they are promoting the sale of PS3's, as soon as the next Playstation is released, more than likely they will put Killzone 2 on PC.
personally I consider PC gamers to be more of a "Gamer" than console gamers, since PC offers a much more immersive experience in the way of "Stereoscopic 3D" "Headtrackers" and "Multi Monitor" setups that emulate peripheral vision.
it seems that gaming enthusiasts that want the best possible experience buy a PC.
it seems to me that casual gamers buy consoles, because they can just pick up a controller and play, they aren't really too interested in being immersed, more serious gamers are.
have fun paying like a 2 grand for a T.V just for 3D.
I'm tired of hearing about this Gran Turismo 5, it's not that great, it's decent, but nothing SHIFT can't pull off, defiantly not worth spending money on a PS3 to play.
I'm just saying PC is a more complete package, that offers you a lot more, and the ability to do more at once, and to have a much more immersive experience with EVERY game.
and you can use a controller with a PC if you want anyways.
oh well, I'm not paying $50 for some crappy game, I'll download it, play it, and if I like it, I'll pay for the game, if the price is worth what you get that is.
I think that's fair, since you can't return the game if you don't like it anyways, and not every game comes with a Demo, even then sometimes the experience you get in a demo, isn't enough to decide if you will end up liking the rest of the game.
if the aiming doesn't look retarded to you, well, then maybe you shouldn't be giving advice of what is good, lol
a mouse & keyboard is the best way to play FPS's, I'm not saying it's best for everything, like sports games, or racing games, for sports games, a controller is best, and racing games, a steering wheel is best, but a M&K will always own, in FPS's
this game looks a lot worse. just compare the vegetation. and the cut-scenes in uncharted 2 are far superior (I think they just used some cheap cgi in this tomb raider)
personally I think when they say things like "And the game is only using 80% of the power of the PS3" they are just making an excuse for the game not looking as good as the PC counterpart.
honestly, there should be no excuse for a game not looking as good if they have more power left over, I think they are using 100% of the power, and it's the best they can do for graphics.
I agree with you about the video cards in consoles being outdated by pc standards, but you have to understand consoles make up with other features. maybe the graphics aren't as crisp and smooth than on a (expensive) high end pc, but there are many graphically impressive console games out there
many games such as Killzone 2, do things like motion blur so you don't notice the low resolution textures that are used, they do the same with GTA IV when your in a helicopter, when you look down on the city scape on PC, you can see detail in everything, and with the console version, it's all blury.
mainly due to the fact that blur is easier to render than detail.
I don't believe it's capable of handling the same detail, otherwise, why not do it then?
I'm just showing that there's reasons why Consoles do certain things, the game developer makes the game, and they don't remake the game when it's put on console or vice versa, so it does not make sense to have a game look worse on console, other than it simply cannot handle it.
it's blurry on console, then it has more detail on PC when it's ported, you think they redid the whole game and made it look better JUST for PC players? I don't think so, the hardware would not be able to handle it.
I think this hype of the "Cell" processor, has gained alot of attention from people that don't know much, they hear "It's the most powerful thing out there" and they hear it because that's what companies do "Upsale their product" everything is the "Worlds most powerful" when your trying to sell it.
then they show unreasonable tests, like this one.
watch?v=-hlzkWHsNTc
which is not a realistic demonstration, when will you be playing a game with zero environment, etc.
What bothers me the most at the moment, there is so much focus on technology these days. I loved the days when games were about games and originality. Today's games are just remakes of older games with improved visuals. Creativity is stalled in the industry cos everybody is so concerned about this damn technology, im sure the industry is laughing their asses of. Gaming could be so much richer, if a lot of the gamers didnt use their technolgy as a strap-on for their ego's.
olanoo33 3 months ago
Press escape to exit full screen.
cyborgtroy 1 year ago
u know pc and console bullshit is stupid bc they all have there pro and cons. a console is made for games most of the time and a pc does almost everything why cant ppl see that.
WhyteLis21 1 year ago
i am waiting for the GTX 480 PS3 got good games
but i like more PC 2560x1600 16xq AA FTW
HosakaBloodLust 2 years ago
I'll rather play in DX9 with a higher fps than in DX11 with lower. There aren't big differences in those, especially in Dirt 2 where the difference isn't even noticeable.
alexapirot32 2 years ago
Please all of you PS3 people and Xbox people get out. This stuff is not for you and will never be. And for you people who have both not one word about these prebuilt outdated home systems.
Scorpion7substance 2 years ago 25
its not that its NEVER for us, it's just that it will take a long time before this hits to consoles
iD0NUTZ 2 years ago 2
ray tracing runs on three ps3s you moron. and its possible the next gen consoles will run it real time so shut your retarded pc fanboy elitist mouth.
nooblet911 1 year ago
@nooblet911 my fuckin ass dude... you think ps3's made Beowulf in the amount of time that desktop workstations with like 8 tesla units inside rendered it? cmon dude. the cell engine is good, but outdated for anything the pc is capable of today, the RSX is the equivelant to a 7800m GS from nvidia. my computer runs around a ps3 by at least 3x if not 4x.
mda40000 1 year ago
I don't really care, I care for games that interest me. you should too if you aren't a graphics whore.
nooblet911 1 year ago
good graphics do not make automatically a good game
nooblet911 1 year ago
@nooblet911 no, THEY MAKE A GREAT GAME! have you seen the bumps of texture of walls? omg i wanna touch them! and have you seen smooth edges of building and not like the jagged edges you see on consoles that you can cut yourself on? XD no im kidding. but PC is more capable, it was there first, its always 2 or 3 steps ahead of the home entertainment console, its for true nerds.
mda40000 1 year ago
I find okami's graphics on the ps2 prettier than crysis' graphics on a powerful pc.
nooblet911 1 year ago
@nooblet911 Yeah, that's really, really sad. Watch this : watch?v=7hEhU1q_BWw&feature=related. If you seriously think that that shitty little console from 8 years ago can run a game that has better graphics than Crysis, a game that requires a $2000 dollar gaming system to run on full graphics, then you sir are retarded. I seriously hope you were mistaken when you made this comment.
anim8ordude 1 year ago
which comment are you reffering to? and yes, I think okami on the ps2 has more asthetic graphics than crysis. graphics aren't only advanced effects. and don't call me a retard you stupid kid.
nooblet911 1 year ago
@nooblet911 Ok, so maybe in terms of design and fantasy style beauty, Crysis isn't the best, but in terms of all graphical effects, it beats any other game so far. The shaders, textures, lighting, subsurface scattering, reflection, refraction, explosions etc are all totally state of the art. And don't dismiss my comment because I'm young, because I know what I'm talking about.
anim8ordude 1 year ago
I never denyed that. I think it's quite clear that crysis is still, despite its age, the most advanced game out there.
nooblet911 1 year ago
@nooblet911 Then in that case, I aplogogise. I misunderstood you comment and never meant any offence. I thought you were trying to say that the graphics were TECHNICALLY better in Okami :D
anim8ordude 1 year ago
if course not, I just get a little pissed off when people claim that a game is prettier based solely on tech. like I said before, advanced graphics don't necesairly make a pretty game. I've seen many unreal engine 3 based games that looked pretty bad (all brown and crap).
nooblet911 1 year ago
@nooblet911 Yeah, I agree with you on that one. Crysis looks good based on the ordinary, but not much more. Unfortunately though, a lot of the more imaginatve games are becoming outdated and new ones aren't as technically as good either, which is what (sadly) a lot more people go for at first sight.
anim8ordude 1 year ago
@nooblet911 If you think the graphics on the PS2 is better than crysis maxed out, then you haven't seen it.. Do you troll?.. Graphics alone doesn't make a game good, i'll agree with that. But the Graphics on PS2 does NOT beat Crysis.. heck, there isn't even a sigle PS3 game that beat crysis graphics.. However, there are pc games such as Metro 2033, just cause 2 and many more that looks much better than crysis.. Mafia 2 will also look outstanding. Graphics gives a game life, but isn't everything.
stovnergutt 1 year ago
it's not a matter of tech but of aesthetics. from a tech perspective, a ps2 game like okami is terrible compared to crysis on a good pc. but from a aesthetic perspective, it's amazing and clearly more artistic than crysis will ever be.
nooblet911 1 year ago
of course the pc has better graphics, but do the realism-imitating games have any artistic value? maybe some, but cysis surely not. it's a nice tech demo, though.
nooblet911 1 year ago
@stovnergutt On the contrary. Graphics doesn't make a game, a game. Console games are like they were made for retards in wheelchairs. Look at Minecraft. It's superior to ALL current games out there, made by a single man, with graphics from the 90's.
hardstyle905 1 year ago
@hardstyle905 Superior according to whom? you?.. There are NO interaction in the game other than placing and destroying boxes. It's extremely repetitive... Awful animation, no story, bad graphics, repetitive gameplay and music. The list is endless..What makes the game good? Nothing.. Is it a good game? No.. Is it different? Hell yea.. That's about it. The game is just different and therefore "feels" like something new. Yet i do recall Lego games from the past similar to this...
stovnergutt 1 year ago
@stovnergutt well, 1,419,943 people bought Minecraft. That's more than a lot of the commercial games have. Can they all be so wrong?
hardstyle905 1 year ago
@hardstyle905 I seriously wouldn't say it's superior to all games. It's not even really a game, but rather a sandbox that just lets you do what you want to with blocks. Now this isn't a criticism. I love minecraft. But to say it's superior to half life 2, portal, starcraft etc. is folly in my opinion.
zeebenzine 10 months ago
I'd also rather play a game with shite graphics but amazing gameplay than a game with the most advanced graphics and boring gameplay
nooblet911 1 year ago
@Scorpion7substance
PS3's Cell Processor Can Do Raytracing.
wariofan279 1 year ago
@Scorpion7substance
My God, get off your damn soapbox, I have both consoles and sure they can't pull off eyecandy like this but at least I'm getting better than 0.63 fps! =^_^=
Demeterkitty 1 year ago
@Demeterkitty Rofl u r disabled
IIRockstarrxX 1 year ago
@IIRockstarrxX
Keep bolstering your little ego to make up for that even smaller thing between your legs you need to compensate for :)
Demeterkitty 1 year ago
@Demeterkitty Consoles are trash. Be gone, troll.
hardstyle905 1 year ago
@hardstyle905 I'm going nowhere. Stuff it.
Demeterkitty 1 year ago
@Scorpion7substance GT5
theonlylolking 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SEGA's Model 4 ray tracing capable hardware is currently in development
Further information is to be found at the following address -
fgnonlinedotwebsdotcom
pornostar100 2 years ago
Leecher
cornflake1998 2 years ago
Come on, PC look great in every way. I have a Ps3 and if you compare any game, ps3 loses. Ok, uncharted looks great, ut if uncharted were on PC, th PC version wins... for a lot.
lostdejavu 2 years ago 3
Teh new 5890 will PWN the fermi cards
MultiIPwnage 2 years ago
no it wont :-)
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
jeez the fanboys here are ignorant
DoCWaSaBe 2 years ago
It is still a long way off before we can have ray tracing at 30+fps. But I can't wait.
oisiaa 2 years ago 6
i swear I saw this a really long time ago
turgore 2 years ago
You probably saw a ray tracing demo rendered in real time with a server computer of some sort
mrjimmyos 2 years ago
sickkkk cant wait for this card 32xAA direct x 11 and i need to upgrade to somethin good my 8600gts is getting old
1988scottcarey 2 years ago
@1988scottcarey
Now if only x32 AA was needed ;)
CutOutSock 2 years ago
Comment removed
1988scottcarey 2 years ago
0,2 fps and 0,6 fps three times better xD
Ridiculous
Fettmull 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Is this impressive?
Cuz GT 5 @1080p 60FPS > This shiat xD
And i'm nvidia fan >_>
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
@PS3AuRoN89 are you retarded or something?
this is REAL TIME raytracing. PS3 raytracing demos never came close to this level of detail; they used 3 PS3 to get aprox 1FPS at a simple model/Scene, and dont get me started on if GT5 looks better/real than this and if it's being "rendered" at 1080p
LOL at trying to compare 5 year old hardware to a brand new, GPGPU monster, with 448+ core design.
and I'm a ATI fan, but please, show more respect.
tabovilla 2 years ago 9
@tabovilla Apparently you're the retard.
On a single PS3 it was possible to render a similar (100K polygon) car model in a room with raytracing at 20+FPS at 1080p!
Stop spouting absolute BS.
JigenD 2 years ago
So you believe sonys Nvidia gpu can do raytracing better than the latest Nvidia card 3 years later & intel cpu advancements?? lol they also told u game would run at 120 fps and that gt5 was full 1080p!! lmao!!
Thet3 2 years ago
pS3 can't do most of it's games @ 60fps but it can do rayt..... u know what never mind!!!
Thet3 2 years ago
@tabovilla it won't let me post the full URL but here's the bit you need :
v=_4z-QcTYlN0
JigenD 2 years ago
@JigenD ?? what are you talking about??!!?
that demo you pointed out:
1. 720p resolution, no AA
2. 4-6 FPS
3. Simpler model/reflections/scenario
It ran better at 15-20FPS when the resolution was set to 480p, thats over 5 times less pixels per frame than 1080p sans AA samples.
another demo
watch?v=zKqZKXwop5E&
runs 60FPS at 1080p, that is 14 cell processor based server cluster.
mate, you are defending 5-6 year old design hardware, sure it was powerful, but it WAS.
tabovilla 2 years ago
@PS3AuRoN89 whats impressive here is the amount of stupidity that it takes o post something like you just did.
but hey its youtube so... ;)
measa2009 2 years ago 3
PS3AuRoN89:
1º) 1080p, 60 FPS, and what about level of AA & Vsync ?
2º) DIRT 1 on PC, 2560 x 1600, 60 FPS. :) (or Race Driver GRID or DIRT 2)
Have u seen on PS3 how "well" runs Mirror Edge, Devil May Cry 4, DIRT 1 or 2, Wolfenstein, FEAR 2 or Batman AA? 1280 x 720p, AA x 4 & 30 FPS maximun on last 3 games.
Prices of games and mono bazar apart. PS3 is a bad inversion nowdays in terms of hardware, because of the GPU.
Nemesa 2 years ago
i known that multiplat game sucks, for obvius reason... but i'm speaking about PS3 Exclusive... and about AA in GT5... it use MLAA performed by the Cell, WAY WAY better than any current PC GPU AA.
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
ok!!!! PC games can hit up to 100+ Fps has up to 2 gbs of of gpu memery, Quad core i7s with hyper threading, can have up to 24 gbs of ram, can do higher res games way higher than 1080p that u never will see until ps5!! Doesn't need blu ray for games or high def movies!! ! Oh and Gt5 will run @ 1280x1080 which is not really full HD 1080p!!! 1920×1080 is full HD 1080p look it up your on the internet!! Sony just told u that becuase they are aware that console fanboys are unaware of the latest tech
Thet3 2 years ago
gt 5 (the final retail game) will run at 1920x1080p @60FPS
you fail.
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
maybe it will be full HD but right now it's 1280x1080p
Thet3 2 years ago
forget it, at 1280x1080p its bland, if u want them to remove even more objects then yea keep asking for that true full hd
i own a 360 and a ps3, and quite honestly, a gf100 pisses all over them both put together, fregin fanboys are detached from reality i swear to god
DoCWaSaBe 2 years ago 2
But at least I can do MLAA!!! nice hack!!
Thet3 2 years ago
lol, the PS3's Cell CAN do Ray Tracing, but it was using THREE PS3's to do it, and it was much slower with rendering than ONE GF100
so considering that's THREE PS3's vs ONE GF100, and the GF100 gets higher fps, that's MUCH better than 3 PS3's.
so no, the Cell sucks in comparison.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
sorry but, you fail
Cell Ray Tracing on PS3 was made with ALL EIGHT (well, seven, since one is disabled) SPU (core) DISABLED... since PS3's hypervisor lock them.
like i said.... LOOK @GT 5 CARS.
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
anyways, you have got to know that consoles are inferior to PC Graphics Cards.
even if it could render faster, PC graphics cards have the ability to increase Anisotropic Filtering, and Anti Aliasing to 16X, whereas most PS3 games are at 0XAA and 4XAF
and Consoles are using an older Shader Model version, and an outdated API (DirectX9), PC uses DirectX11)
you can see special effects left out for console, like Modern Warfare 2, they had to disable the blood on the screen. lol
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
[quote]anyways, you have got to know that consoles are inferior to PC Graphics Cards.[/quote]
I admit that.
I only said that Cell > this shit in Ray Tracing... and damn... is a FACT.
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
you can also run at much higher resolutions like 1600p with PC, and with Console MOST games are running at 720p
PC graphics cards are doing much more work.
there's a reason Crysis never went to Console, I certainly wouldn't want to put a game on console if I was the owner of either console companies, and I knew it would look like crap in comparison to PC, that's like bad advertising.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
Man, don't speak about multi-platform games, they sucks a lot.
Look at all ps3 esclusives, and even pc gamers will became jealous.
And don't speak about Special Effect too...
Have you ever seen Killzone 2 light effect?
it blow out every everything.
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
Wut??
Crysis 2 will be released on ps3 also.
PS3AuRoN89 2 years ago
PS3's aren't as powerful as they are made out to be, they fool people, because the average person doesn't understand technology.
you could run a comparison of a PS3 running a game getting 60 fps, and say it's better than the PC version running at 30 fps.
but that means fuck all, if the PS3 version is running at 720p with 0XAA and 4XAF, and the PC version is 16XAA, 16XAF, and 1600p
starting to get it now?
Good.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
its not about hardware power, its about the games
and looking at the games, the ps3 does draw impressive graphics (check out uncharted 2, killzone 2, gran turismo 5 prologue, ect.), even if 'just' at 720p (1080p at best)
besides, most of the ps3 exclusive games will never see a pc release (you will have to wait for emulators to be written which can take more years)
nooblet911 2 years ago
it's actually about both, would you like to have a system that had the graphics seen on the game "E.T" but had 10,000 games, or would you want a system that has 1 game, but that game has insane graphics?
I really wouldn't want neither, but PC is the sweet spot for me, many times ppl told me "That game will never go to PC" and it does, like Gears of War for example.
funny you mention Emulators, that actually gives PC MUCH MORE playability than PS3 does.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
and let's be fair now, PC has exclusives that PS3 and 360 don't have, so it's not really a good argument to pick.
overall I would say PC is a better system, what PC lacks for games (Which isn't that much really) is made up for with being able to mod games, and create and play on custom maps, and use custom weapons, and being able to play in 3D on 3 screens, while watching a Bluray movie on another screen, and burning a Bluray movie, and listening to music, all at one time.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well to each his own
if you don't like the console games that probably means you don't need a console and should stick to the pc
nooblet911 2 years ago
gears of war 2 is still only on the 360, btw
nooblet911 2 years ago
lol good for it, GOW blows anyways.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
you won't see games like gran turismo 5, god of war III and uncharted 2 on your pc, though
nooblet911 2 years ago
oh well, not good enough reason to get a console for me, the major pro's of PC outweigh it's minor cons, not like it matters anyways, you'll never see Crysis on consoles.
so it's all relevant.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
are you so sure? crysis 2 is comming on consoles you know
nooblet911 2 years ago
Crysis 1 isn't on Consoles.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well who knows, maybe they'll make a port of the first one too. they did it with half-life 2, so...
nooblet911 2 years ago
maybe you have a good exclusive or two on the pc, but thats nothing compared to the list of good console exclusives
nooblet911 2 years ago
I just did the math, and based on Gamespot's list of games, PC accounts for 12,878 Games, PS3 accounts for 985, and Xbox 360 accounts for 2,104 games.
PC has 6.1 times more games than Xbox 360, and 13.07 times more games than PS3.
Overall PC has a much bigger selection of Games, than Consoles.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well who cares about outdated games. are you gonna play those on your new gaming rig?
nooblet911 2 years ago
and Crysis 2 on Consoles is not going to look nearly as good, I don't know why people would expect it to, it's not an almighty piece of equipment that pervades all space, and time or something.
We have video cards in PC's that are much better than what can be found in Consoles.
if what's found in consoles was the same as what PC's were using 4 years ago, then it doesn't make any sense to keep releasing video cards.
obviously they are getting better.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
who knows, maybe crysis 2 on the pc will look much like the console versions just with some aditional effects. maybe they are making crysis 2 primary for consoles.
nooblet911 2 years ago
as pc hardware progresses, so do console developers learn to use console hardware better. gran tuismo 5 is said to use about 80 percent of ps3's power for example. and thats pretty impressive actually, considering how complex development for the cell processor is. the cell is much more advanced than any pc cpu you can buy now, just that its hard to use all its power
nooblet911 2 years ago
PC processors, and Console processors are designed to work completely different.
and you get to a point, where it really doesn't matter which ones better anyways, if the street sign says 50 mph, and your car can do 200 mph, let's say your car wouldn't let you go faster than the speed limit, then the extra speed isn't going to count for anything.
your car could go 10,000 mph, and mine could go 50 mph, and we'd still get the same place at the same time.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
the typical pc fan thinks that if he buys the latest graphics card he can expect the best graphics. but thats not completely true. while you can have very sharp and smooth graphics, you won't necesairly have the best-looking games. the best-looking games last year was uncharted 2 on the ps3, despite runing only in 720p res
nooblet911 2 years ago
good looking games is a matter of opinion anyways.
and Unchartered 2 is over rated, sure it looks pretty good, but it's nothing ground breaking that I haven't seen in other games.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well I also think that crysis, while very advanced, is not all that pretty either. too plastic graphics for my taste
nooblet911 2 years ago
also GTA IV has ZERO anti-aliasing, this is because it was on Console first, and most games on Consoles run at 0XAA, and at best 4XAA, this is why people complain about getting a crap port over to PC, when it's first on PC it looks great, and then when it's ported to console, people don't notice it, because they are use to not having any Antialiasing, and whatnot, so there's no complaints on their side.
but really Consoles wreck PC games.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
consoles wreck pc games? because the developers are too lazy to make decent ports?
nooblet911 2 years ago
let me put it this way: of course modern pcs are more powerful than consoles, but I'm yet to see a action adventure with cut scenes the quality uncharted 2 has and a racing game with cars the quality gran turismo 5 has. and graphics are not the only important thing. things like gameplay, level design and fun matter too.
nooblet911 2 years ago
lol, cutscenes and intro's are not important, because those are pre rendered, you could have the shittiest looking game in history, have the best looking cutscene or intro you have ever seen.
like this
watch?v=8Rveg9MxCYw
comparing gameplay is irrelevant, since that's identical on both systems, and controlling a game is much better with a keyboard & mouse, with the exception of racing games, and games like Resident Evil 5, FPS's tho, it's PC FTW.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well let me say it this way: I won't be able to play games like uncharted 2, gran turismo 5, god of war III (not to my taste, though), heavy rain (also, but it will be good), the last guardian, zelda and mario on the pc and those games will be excellent (not only in my opinion)
if you're satisfied with your pc shooters, strategies and mmos, fine with me
nooblet911 2 years ago
I'm just saying that for me personally, the few extra games that consoles get don't outweigh the pro's of owning a nice PC.
I'd just be pissed off, owning a console and hearing PC gamers say "Hey, I'm playing on 100+ user created maps, and modding games, are you?"
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
if you rather have a great pc over consoles and a medium pc, you aren't a gamer with a developed taste in games
nooblet911 2 years ago
lol, I'd rather have a GREAT PC over a console, cuz you can play nearly all the games that you can play on console, in Stereoscopic 3D, and completely customize the games, and have better graphics, and play with more people online, and listen to music at the same time, while playing a Bluray movie on another monitor, while burning a BluRay movie.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
being completely realistic, it's not like Consoles have 50% of the games that aren't released on PC, it's more like 1% of the games aren't released on PC.
most of the time major releases are released on PC as well, the only reason why Killzone 2 for example isn't on PC, is they are promoting the sale of PS3's, as soon as the next Playstation is released, more than likely they will put Killzone 2 on PC.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
and I'd say 1% of the games released on PC, aren't on console, so since 1% of the games released on console, aren't on PC, it's really about even.
the argument can go both ways, so they cancel eachother out.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
there are tons of great console games that never were released on the pc (unless we talk about illeagal emulation)
and sony doesn't put their exclusive games on the pc, btw
nooblet911 2 years ago
lol, well of course they don't put their EXCLUSIVE PS3 games on PC, it wouldn't be an EXCLUSIVE if they did.
Sony DOES support PC games tho, look at their site.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
personally I consider PC gamers to be more of a "Gamer" than console gamers, since PC offers a much more immersive experience in the way of "Stereoscopic 3D" "Headtrackers" and "Multi Monitor" setups that emulate peripheral vision.
it seems that gaming enthusiasts that want the best possible experience buy a PC.
it seems to me that casual gamers buy consoles, because they can just pick up a controller and play, they aren't really too interested in being immersed, more serious gamers are.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
like I said - you are not a gamer with a developed taste if you don't play the best console games
and games like shadow of colossus offer great immersion
nooblet911 2 years ago
lol, you don't know what immersion is until you have played on a PC in all it's glory.
how is a game on Console immersive?
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well maybe because of great design, story, gameplay, ect.?
nooblet911 2 years ago
I'm referring to another type of "Immersion" the type your talking about is nothing special.
I'm talking about actually feeling like your in the game.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
well you do feel much like 'you're in the game' if you play gran turismo 5 with a wheel on a big tv screen and good surround sound
and sony said ps3 will support the new 3d tvs
nooblet911 2 years ago
have fun paying like a 2 grand for a T.V just for 3D.
I'm tired of hearing about this Gran Turismo 5, it's not that great, it's decent, but nothing SHIFT can't pull off, defiantly not worth spending money on a PS3 to play.
I'm just saying PC is a more complete package, that offers you a lot more, and the ability to do more at once, and to have a much more immersive experience with EVERY game.
and you can use a controller with a PC if you want anyways.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
shift is just a average gt clone
nooblet911 2 years ago
I'm not saying that the pc is bad, I'm just saying that consoles also have their qualities, btw
nooblet911 2 years ago
I'd say the only real major quality of a console is the portability of it.
and the price, but really, that's relevant to what you can do, the PC's abilities are justified for paying a higher price.
you pay for what you get.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago 3
no, the good games that don't come to pc are the major quality
nooblet911 2 years ago
U got that RIGHT!
Arkmenra1880 2 years ago
what did I get right? I'm sure everything I said, haha :-)
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
Well, PS3 only costs $300.
itchyfingers89 2 years ago
oh well, I'll download 200 games for $0
1981z28camaro 2 years ago 2
thats piracy man
nooblet911 2 years ago
oh well, I'm not paying $50 for some crappy game, I'll download it, play it, and if I like it, I'll pay for the game, if the price is worth what you get that is.
I think that's fair, since you can't return the game if you don't like it anyways, and not every game comes with a Demo, even then sometimes the experience you get in a demo, isn't enough to decide if you will end up liking the rest of the game.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago 11
@1981z28camaro
You are 100% right man!
1Ali380 2 years ago
thanks :-)
good to see someone agrees, lol
not exactly sure which comment you agree with tho..
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
So basically a PS3 costs like 6 games, isn't that great?
alexapirot32 2 years ago
lol, then buy a fucking PS3 then, I don't care, it's not my fault you can't afford a PC, or see the value in it.
you don't bitch that Bugatti Veyrons suck, because you can't afford it do you?
"Oh Bugatti Veyrons suck, cuz I can't afford it"
1981z28camaro 2 years ago 3
@alexapirot32 no , PS3 suck , and why woul you buy games ? you could download it and then buy it if you want ...
auchamp1 1 year ago
wait for a sale on steam... it's cheap, convenient, and it doesn't hurt the industry
bokanovskyprocess 2 years ago
and don't forget the wii with its motion controller
try to play a shooting game with a wii zapper, not with a mouse and keyboard (which are working tools tbh)
nooblet911 2 years ago
the wii controller is FUCKING retarded.
watch?v=tsm0IzxfT7c
if the aiming doesn't look retarded to you, well, then maybe you shouldn't be giving advice of what is good, lol
a mouse & keyboard is the best way to play FPS's, I'm not saying it's best for everything, like sports games, or racing games, for sports games, a controller is best, and racing games, a steering wheel is best, but a M&K will always own, in FPS's
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
the wii controller with the wii zapper is still better for on-rails shooters
nooblet911 2 years ago
oh, and for the record, I don't consider the Wii a proper gaming system, the graphics are horrible, aside from the controls sucking.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
you don't consider is a gaming system just because of the graphics and different controls?
there is a expression for such people on the internet you know (i.e. 'graphics wh*re')
nooblet911 2 years ago
Uncharted 2 doesn't look all that much different graphics wise from this game.
watch?v=73tpYsjslDY
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
this game looks a lot worse. just compare the vegetation. and the cut-scenes in uncharted 2 are far superior (I think they just used some cheap cgi in this tomb raider)
nooblet911 2 years ago
personally I think when they say things like "And the game is only using 80% of the power of the PS3" they are just making an excuse for the game not looking as good as the PC counterpart.
honestly, there should be no excuse for a game not looking as good if they have more power left over, I think they are using 100% of the power, and it's the best they can do for graphics.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
I agree with you about the video cards in consoles being outdated by pc standards, but you have to understand consoles make up with other features. maybe the graphics aren't as crisp and smooth than on a (expensive) high end pc, but there are many graphically impressive console games out there
nooblet911 2 years ago
many games such as Killzone 2, do things like motion blur so you don't notice the low resolution textures that are used, they do the same with GTA IV when your in a helicopter, when you look down on the city scape on PC, you can see detail in everything, and with the console version, it's all blury.
mainly due to the fact that blur is easier to render than detail.
I don't believe it's capable of handling the same detail, otherwise, why not do it then?
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
its not only about detail, its also about aesthetics
nooblet911 2 years ago
I'm just showing that there's reasons why Consoles do certain things, the game developer makes the game, and they don't remake the game when it's put on console or vice versa, so it does not make sense to have a game look worse on console, other than it simply cannot handle it.
it's blurry on console, then it has more detail on PC when it's ported, you think they redid the whole game and made it look better JUST for PC players? I don't think so, the hardware would not be able to handle it.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
I think this hype of the "Cell" processor, has gained alot of attention from people that don't know much, they hear "It's the most powerful thing out there" and they hear it because that's what companies do "Upsale their product" everything is the "Worlds most powerful" when your trying to sell it.
then they show unreasonable tests, like this one.
watch?v=-hlzkWHsNTc
which is not a realistic demonstration, when will you be playing a game with zero environment, etc.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
pcs are not the major gaming platform anymore, they are just the testing ground for new technologies and console ports these days
nooblet911 2 years ago