Which gaming platform is always ahead in terms of graphics?


Recommended Posts

Even when the XBOX 360/PS3 where in the designing stages they had inferior graphic capabilities to current gaming PC's.

It's a trade off between price and power, a good example of this was the Neo-geo, at the time it had much more power than your average gaming console yet was almost unheard of because of it's staggering price a few years later the next gen consoles game out with greater power but at a conceivable price.

The main reason my PC has become secondary to my XBOX in gaming is because i just do not have the finances to upgrade every time a new game comes out that pushes the boundaries of what's graphically possible... i could just get the game and play it on a lower setting but i've never been able to do that haha :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone will agree that the PC has the better graphics. The cost however is much much more than a console.

In terms of consoles, it certainly seems right now that the PS3 has the raw power to produce better visuals not from the graphics card itself but by utilising the cell processor and offloading some routines for lighting, DOF etc When looking at multi platform games you won't see too much difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that PC graphics are always being held down by consoles because developers are aiming for consoles first. Aside from screen resolution advantage of PC, low resolution textures get ported and aren't improved for PC which end up looking terrible and blurry. Well then again this only applies to games available on both platforms, if it was developed for PC exclusively I'm sure it'll be more superior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a toss up. PCs will have better hardware, consoles generally have better artistic flair and developer support. Especially since TV resolutions finally caught up and pure resolution isn't much of an issue.

Now PC gamers have the additional disadvantage of having their genre's reborn on the console as lesser products with little cross-compatability. Thanks MS and all you complacent noobsticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a toss up. PCs will have better hardware, consoles generally have better artistic flair and developer support. Especially since TV resolutions finally caught up and pure resolution isn't much of an issue.

TV's may have caught up to pc's with the 1080p HD but consoles themselves have not yet. Devs still struggle to even get 720p out of a console game. Often times settling for less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TV's may have caught up to pc's with the 1080p HD but consoles themselves have not yet. Devs still struggle to even get 720p out of a console game. Often times settling for less.

Thing is though, TV scalers are very good in decent to top end TVs, so even at 720p, many console games look stunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC > PS3 > 360 > Wii as it stands for a title(s) showcasing best graphics.

It's PC > 360 > PS3 > Wii. Though the PS3 and 360 do trade blows, the 360 is usually the one dishing them, with better AA and framerate.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What war? There's no disagreement about the OP's question; the PC platform has the best graphics. He asked nothing about value, controls, game availability, customization, or anything else that might get people over-excited about debating the platforms.

As for consoles NEVER being as good as PCs in terms of graphics: think twice. It won't be long before consoles are, themselves, PCs proper. The only thing preventing that now is cost; that will change as the PC industry shifts to parallel-processing to increase computing power. When that happens, there may or may not be incentive to develop higher-end graphics for dedicated gaming workstations. Time will tell.

+1 on that. There is no disagreement. Also agree on the consoles. They aren't far from being computers now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's PC > 360 > PS3 > Wii. Though the PS3 and 360 do trade blows, the 360 is usually the one dishing them, with better AA and framerate.

I'm talking about what's produced the game that looks the best, and nothing on the 360 looks better than Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to say the PC, and it'd be true if game makers decided to make titles for users of only the latest cards.

Unfortunately, this is not true so I'd have to say that the PS3 wins the title simply because games take full potential of the hardware at hand.

Too much time is made to make PC games backwards compatible or are simply ports of console games.

PCs are more capable but their capability is not usually stretched to it's limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's PC > 360 > PS3 > Wii. Though the PS3 and 360 do trade blows, the 360 is usually the one dishing them, with better AA and framerate.

Beginning to end, thanks for the epic lawlz. Hell, I'll even give you a Pity Rep Point. With comments like that, you'll need it.

It was stated correctly the first time around. "PC>PS3>360>Wii"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to admit though, that the game developers have quite some talent. They can optimize the next new game, on 2005/6 hardware. It's amazing how games keep looking better on consoles, but running the new game on the PC requires graphics to be toned down, or new hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're getting warmer.... :devil:

I stand by that. Then again, that is my assessment (opinion) from what I have seen and read. It will be a never ending dispute that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand by that. Then again, that is my assessment (opinion) from what I have seen and read. It will be a never ending dispute that.

That's cool and respected. May I ask your opinion though, on which game you feel has the best graphics or which two you feel are a perfectly tied and why? Console-wise of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Id like to say PC but tbh these days it seems developers design games with consoles in mind and then quickly port it over to the pc. Id say console graphics look pretty much the same with a pc on dx9 games, but when you look at dx10/11 games then you'll see the pc excel above the others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool and respected. May I ask your opinion though, on which game you feel has the best graphics or which two you feel are a perfectly tied and why? Console-wise of course.

IMO, I personally feel they are tied. The PS3 has a stellar CPU that exceeds the Xbox 360 by leaps and bounds. However, it's the graphics card and the split memory architecture that prevent it from using it's potential. If the graphics card were as good as the 360 graphics card, and had the single pool of RAM, the PS3 would smoke the 360 in the end.

But as it stands, the 3 core CPU, while not nearly on the same level as the cell, ain't no slouch. Topped off with the free AA of the edram, the single pool of memory and the better graphics card, I feel that they are achieving the same abilities.

To me, the PS3 is like a nice new 2009 Corvette ZR1 with 638hp, but restricted to only 500hp because GM decided to go from the dual exhaust starting at the headers, down to one pipe, to a catalytic converter, then back out to dual exhaust (GM didn't really do that). The PS3 has the potential of the full 638hp, but other restrictions are preventing it from being used.

The 360 on the other hand is a new 2009 Corvette Z06 with 500hp, with no restrictions because the dual exhaust from the headers all the way back to the mufflers are 2 open opens with a catalytic converter on each pipe.

The PS3 normally should wallop the 360, but I hate to say it, but it has some bottlenecks preventing it from using all of it's CPU resources.

Best graphics? I will use Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 as an example of my feelings on the subject. Killzone 2 IMO is the best looking shooter on consoles to date for single player and online. However, Killzone 2 does not have split screen nor co-op. It is also very linear. Even the developers stated that they didn't do co-op/split screen because they didn't want to tax the graphics.

Gears of War 2 is not as good looking as Killzone 2 in single player nor online. However, Gears of War 2 has split screen and co-op. Epic took a tax on the graphics to be able to offer those multiplayer features. But the game still looks damn good.

Had KZ2 came out with splitscreen and co-op, I believe it would have been on par with Gears of War. Had Gears of War been released without splitscreen and co-op, I think Gears of War would have looked just as good as Killzone 2.

I think the CPU in the PS3 give it some advantages in physics (floating debris, better HDR) as well as in res (more 1080p games), but I think the 360 graphics card and unified ram give it better textures, and that combination with the 3 core can give it better AI.

This is my educated guess and opinion. If people disagree that is cool. I am happy to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC will always be ahead in graphics

But: console games in some cases look better then their PC counter parts. So it really depends on the developer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloody hell we're like 2 replies away from another fight over PS/XBOX. Just put them together, as "CONSOLES".

OK... PC (has the potential to be...) > Console

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But: console games in some cases look better then their PC counter parts. So it really depends on the developer

They do? I can't recall a single game, no matter how bad a port it was where it looked better on the console :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.