WHy do the consoles have the best looking games?

  • 186 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

#102 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

Jelly?

#103 Edited by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

Jelly?

Of what exactly?

#104 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

Jelly?

Of what exactly?

Confirmed. :)

#105 Posted by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

Jelly?

Of what exactly?

Confirmed. :)

So you can't answer?

#106 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

Jelly?

Of what exactly?

Confirmed. :)

So you can't answer?

So you can't be jelly? That's a sad existence.

#107 Posted by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

console have better games because they are gaming machines first and foremost...well...xbone is debatable. developers have set in concrete, the requirements needed for running their games on a console. pcs are all over the place, and devs have to take into consideration the least common dominator for getting their game to run half way decent. this is why usee very few, big budget, graphically tang exclusive games. on pc. mmos, rts, and flash indies rule the pc platform.

PS3 was initially bought as a cheap blu-ray player,not as a gaming machine

Jelly?

Of what exactly?

Confirmed. :)

So you can't answer?

So you can't be jelly? That's a sad existence.

I can't.

And you actually never answer,afraid of being owned it seems.

#108 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@MonsieurX: There's nothing to answer. You are watching me, and show up whenever I post, and you bring the jelly butthurt. If you want to play these games so bad, just get a PS3 or Ps4

#109 Edited by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: There's nothing to answer. You are watching me, and show up whenever I post, and you bring the jelly butthurt. If you want to play these games so bad, just get a PS3 or Ps4

You can't even say about what I'm supposed to be jealous here,dat logic

My PS3 is gathering dust

#110 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

#111 Posted by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

#112 Posted by the_bi99man (11024 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

#113 Edited by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

I'm probably as bored as he is

#114 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

I'm probably as bored as he is

B-b-but all those pc games to play. How can you be bored?

#115 Posted by Alienware_fan (1492 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

#116 Posted by MonsieurX (28627 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@the_bi99man said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

I'm probably as bored as he is

B-b-but all those pc games to play. How can you be bored?

How can you be bored with your all-mighty PS3 and PS4?

#117 Posted by MdBrOtha04 (1820 posts) -

Sorry but having all 3,

OP...you are wrong.

#118 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@the_bi99man said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

I'm probably as bored as he is

B-b-but all those pc games to play. How can you be bored?

How can you be bored with your all-mighty PS3 and PS4?

I'm not. In fact, I just paused playing Dragon's Crown on my Vita, so could type this, and laugh at your continued jelly. :)

#119 Edited by Evo_nine (1569 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@the_bi99man said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

I'm probably as bored as he is

B-b-but all those pc games to play. How can you be bored?

How can you be bored with your all-mighty PS3 and PS4?

I'm not. In fact, I just paused playing Dragon's Crown on my Vita, so could type this, and laugh at your continued jelly. :)

Sounds about as much fun as sticking a twig up your pee hole.

#120 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@Evo_nine said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX said:

@the_bi99man said:

@MonsieurX said:

@xboxdone74 said:

@MonsieurX: Why won't you answer? If you want to play these games, why not get a PS3 or ps4?

Why can't you read?

Hey,you didn't post a jelly pic,congrats!

Why are you even engaging with this troll? His user name alone is enough to know he's not worth talking to.

I'm probably as bored as he is

B-b-but all those pc games to play. How can you be bored?

How can you be bored with your all-mighty PS3 and PS4?

I'm not. In fact, I just paused playing Dragon's Crown on my Vita, so could type this, and laugh at your continued jelly. :)

Sounds about as much fun as sticking a twig up your pee hole.

Is that what you do in your, mass quantities, of free time? Since, you know, you got no games to play? :)

#121 Edited by the_bi99man (11024 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

Absolutely not. Literally impossible. Why? Because massive resolution is one of the biggest reasons that CGI movies can look as good as they do. That's the difference between pre-rendering (CGI movies) and real time rendering (video games). CGI movies are pre-rendered at massive resolutions. Like, beyond 4K. Beyond 8K. Rendered using farms of computers, each more powerful than any gaming system. And even with those rendering farms, it might take hours to render a 5 minute scene. That's where all the detail comes from in the first place. Then, video that's already been rendered is put on a disc, to be displayed at whatever resolution your player/TV allow. 1080p or 720p, or even less, if you're using a DVD, rather than a Bluray.

Video games will have to be rendered at higher resolutions, as well, in order to achieve that level of detail. And the whole point of real time rendering, which allows interactivity (obviously necessary for a video game), is that rendering and displaying are done at the same time, and the rendering is done by the home device (be it a PC or a console), right there while you're playing. And if your PC or console is powerful enough to do that rendering, at the resolution necessary for such detail, there's no reason to display it at a lower resolution.

So basically, what I'm getting at is that, eventually graphic fidelity in video games will reach the point that CGI movies already have, but increasing resolution is one of the many things that will have to be done to get there. Resolution isn't a separate thing from "graphics", as the statement, "720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good", implies. There are many contributing factors to the picture fidelity that many gamers refer to with the blanket label of "graphics", and resolution is one of the most important ones.

#122 Posted by killatwill15 (845 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

Absolutely not. Literally impossible. Why? Because massive resolution is one of the biggest reasons that CGI movies can look as good as they do. That's the difference between pre-rendering (CGI movies) and real time rendering (video games). CGI movies are pre-rendered at massive resolutions. Like, beyond 4K. Beyond 8K. Rendered using farms of computers, each more powerful than any gaming system. And even with those rendering farms, it might take hours to render a 5 minute scene. That's where all the detail comes from in the first place. Then, video that's already been rendered is put on a disc, to be displayed at whatever resolution your player/TV allow. 1080p or 720p, or even less, if you're using a DVD, rather than a Bluray.

Video games will have to be rendered at higher resolutions, as well, in order to achieve that level of detail. And the whole point of real time rendering, which allows interactivity (obviously necessary for a video game), is that rendering and displaying are done at the same time, and the rendering is done by the home device (be it a PC or a console), right there while you're playing. And if your PC or console is powerful enough to do that rendering, at the resolution necessary for such detail, there's no reason to display it at a lower resolution.

So basically, what I'm getting at is that, eventually graphic fidelity in video games will reach the point that CGI movies already have, but increasing resolution is one of the many things that will have to be done to get there. Resolution isn't a separate thing from "graphics", as the statement, "720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good", implies. There are many contributing factors to the picture fidelity that many gamers refer to with the blanket label of "graphics", and resolution is one of the most important ones.

whoa slow it down,

im pretty sure he is just jerking your penis skin bro....

unless he is truly that stupid

#123 Posted by the_bi99man (11024 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

@the_bi99man said:

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

Absolutely not. Literally impossible. Why? Because massive resolution is one of the biggest reasons that CGI movies can look as good as they do. That's the difference between pre-rendering (CGI movies) and real time rendering (video games). CGI movies are pre-rendered at massive resolutions. Like, beyond 4K. Beyond 8K. Rendered using farms of computers, each more powerful than any gaming system. And even with those rendering farms, it might take hours to render a 5 minute scene. That's where all the detail comes from in the first place. Then, video that's already been rendered is put on a disc, to be displayed at whatever resolution your player/TV allow. 1080p or 720p, or even less, if you're using a DVD, rather than a Bluray.

Video games will have to be rendered at higher resolutions, as well, in order to achieve that level of detail. And the whole point of real time rendering, which allows interactivity (obviously necessary for a video game), is that rendering and displaying are done at the same time, and the rendering is done by the home device (be it a PC or a console), right there while you're playing. And if your PC or console is powerful enough to do that rendering, at the resolution necessary for such detail, there's no reason to display it at a lower resolution.

So basically, what I'm getting at is that, eventually graphic fidelity in video games will reach the point that CGI movies already have, but increasing resolution is one of the many things that will have to be done to get there. Resolution isn't a separate thing from "graphics", as the statement, "720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good", implies. There are many contributing factors to the picture fidelity that many gamers refer to with the blanket label of "graphics", and resolution is one of the most important ones.

whoa slow it down,

im pretty sure he is just jerking your penis skin bro....

unless he is truly that stupid

He might be. Hahaha. As I'm sure you can tell from the OP, he's not the smartest peanut in the turd.

Besides, that exact argument (Avatar looks better than any video game, even when you watch it in SD on a DVD, so higher resolutions must not be necessary) has actually been used around here before, so it's always good to educate folks on the difference between pre-rendering and real-time. Every time I see a comment along the lines of, "I don't care about the resolution, as long as the graphics are good", I'm like, "great. another person who doesn't know, even at the most basic levels, how rendering works".

#124 Posted by Alienware_fan (1492 posts) -

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

Absolutely not. Literally impossible. Why? Because massive resolution is one of the biggest reasons that CGI movies can look as good as they do. That's the difference between pre-rendering (CGI movies) and real time rendering (video games). CGI movies are pre-rendered at massive resolutions. Like, beyond 4K. Beyond 8K. Rendered using farms of computers, each more powerful than any gaming system. And even with those rendering farms, it might take hours to render a 5 minute scene. That's where all the detail comes from in the first place. Then, video that's already been rendered is put on a disc, to be displayed at whatever resolution your player/TV allow. 1080p or 720p, or even less, if you're using a DVD, rather than a Bluray.

Video games will have to be rendered at higher resolutions, as well, in order to achieve that level of detail. And the whole point of real time rendering, which allows interactivity (obviously necessary for a video game), is that rendering and displaying are done at the same time, and the rendering is done by the home device (be it a PC or a console), right there while you're playing. And if your PC or console is powerful enough to do that rendering, at the resolution necessary for such detail, there's no reason to display it at a lower resolution.

So basically, what I'm getting at is that, eventually graphic fidelity in video games will reach the point that CGI movies already have, but increasing resolution is one of the many things that will have to be done to get there. Resolution isn't a separate thing from "graphics", as the statement, "720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good", implies. There are many contributing factors to the picture fidelity that many gamers refer to with the blanket label of "graphics", and resolution is one of the most important ones.

whoa slow it down,

im pretty sure he is just jerking your penis skin bro....

unless he is truly that stupid

okay smart guy tell me why crysis 3 even at 1024x768 looks better than most games even at 1600p?

#125 Edited by Shielder7 (4588 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

#126 Posted by killatwill15 (845 posts) -

@killatwill15 said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

Absolutely not. Literally impossible. Why? Because massive resolution is one of the biggest reasons that CGI movies can look as good as they do. That's the difference between pre-rendering (CGI movies) and real time rendering (video games). CGI movies are pre-rendered at massive resolutions. Like, beyond 4K. Beyond 8K. Rendered using farms of computers, each more powerful than any gaming system. And even with those rendering farms, it might take hours to render a 5 minute scene. That's where all the detail comes from in the first place. Then, video that's already been rendered is put on a disc, to be displayed at whatever resolution your player/TV allow. 1080p or 720p, or even less, if you're using a DVD, rather than a Bluray.

Video games will have to be rendered at higher resolutions, as well, in order to achieve that level of detail. And the whole point of real time rendering, which allows interactivity (obviously necessary for a video game), is that rendering and displaying are done at the same time, and the rendering is done by the home device (be it a PC or a console), right there while you're playing. And if your PC or console is powerful enough to do that rendering, at the resolution necessary for such detail, there's no reason to display it at a lower resolution.

So basically, what I'm getting at is that, eventually graphic fidelity in video games will reach the point that CGI movies already have, but increasing resolution is one of the many things that will have to be done to get there. Resolution isn't a separate thing from "graphics", as the statement, "720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good", implies. There are many contributing factors to the picture fidelity that many gamers refer to with the blanket label of "graphics", and resolution is one of the most important ones.

whoa slow it down,

im pretty sure he is just jerking your penis skin bro....

unless he is truly that stupid

okay smart guy tell me why crysis 3 even at 1024x768 looks better than most games even at 1600p?

you know crysis 3 can go to 1600p, so your argument makes no sense

#127 Posted by lostrib (31433 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

#128 Posted by trugs26 (5110 posts) -

It's actually an interesting observation. One of the reasons is because developers haven't optimised on new hardware - because it's new, they haven't played around long enough yet. On older hardware, after some time, developers optimise, hence why you get such a stark difference from the beginning and end of the generation on the same platform.

In a way, you can say that these optimisations "keep up" (to an extent) with new hardware. Obviously there is a limit, but luckily by then, new hardware eventually releases anyway.

#129 Posted by Shielder7 (4588 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

#130 Posted by lostrib (31433 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

#131 Edited by Shielder7 (4588 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

Well now maybe since you can't find much of anything in just 720 anymore, but wind the clock back about 3 years and all those 27 and 28s were in 720. FYI not everyone replaces their monitor as soon as a new one comes out.

#132 Edited by AzatiS (6976 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Ahh... That was the most stupid trolish topic in a while ... 0/10 ... sadly. But dont get discouraged , try better !

#133 Posted by lostrib (31433 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

Well now maybe since you can't find much of anything in just 720 anymore, but wind the clock back about 3 years and all those 27 and 28s were in 720. FYI not everyone replaces their monitor as soon as a new one comes out.

Those people are idiots then

#134 Edited by Shielder7 (4588 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

Well now maybe since you can't find much of anything in just 720 anymore, but wind the clock back about 3 years and all those 27 and 28s were in 720. FYI not everyone replaces their monitor as soon as a new one comes out.

Those people are idiots then

I completely agree hermits are idiots.

#135 Posted by wis3boi (30880 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

Well now maybe since you can't find much of anything in just 720 anymore, but wind the clock back about 3 years and all those 27 and 28s were in 720. FYI not everyone replaces their monitor as soon as a new one comes out.

Those people are idiots then

I completely agree hermits are idiots.

dat self projection

#136 Edited by Butcer2 (59 posts) -

Because devlopers spend far more time optimzing games on consoles then pc and spend more money on it then on pc, and the reason is simple, 80% of the money to made is made on consoles and only 20% on pc, so what market do you focus on? of course the 80%

#137 Posted by lostrib (31433 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

Well now maybe since you can't find much of anything in just 720 anymore, but wind the clock back about 3 years and all those 27 and 28s were in 720. FYI not everyone replaces their monitor as soon as a new one comes out.

Those people are idiots then

I completely agree hermits are idiots.

Who are you agreeing with? That's not what I said.

#138 Posted by Shielder7 (4588 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

Well now maybe since you can't find much of anything in just 720 anymore, but wind the clock back about 3 years and all those 27 and 28s were in 720. FYI not everyone replaces their monitor as soon as a new one comes out.

Those people are idiots then

I completely agree hermits are idiots.

Who are you agreeing with? That's not what I said.

Than why did you say it.

#139 Posted by Ripsaw1994 (82 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

Depends on the PC.

BS.

Well it's kinda hard to take you seriously when you provide no evidence and you apparently own an alienware.

#140 Edited by MK-Professor (3627 posts) -

We are having a Alienware_fan meltdown.

#141 Posted by remiks00 (1529 posts) -

lol, this thread can't be serious... PC has ALWAYS had the best graphics capability; and I'm not even talking about $3000 PC's. A $600-$700 pc has substantially better looking/running multiplats than console counter-parts. Most console games have to sacrifice graphical prowess, and they still run at 30fps. (With the exception of a few games..). Either you're being ignorant or trolling. This has been common knowledge forever dude..

#142 Posted by KillzoneSnake (1623 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Right... No.

Right... yes. If he is playing on a small screen its very hard to notice anything higher. Personally im happy with 1080p, i dont need higher. 4k the gimmick normal people dont care about.

#143 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2199 posts) -

Is that the reason Crysis 2 from 2011 shits all over all PS4/X1 games? Consoles can only have decent looking games if they try TOO hard and that's it.

#144 Posted by dommeus (9097 posts) -

This will end well

this will never end

#145 Posted by kraken2109 (12948 posts) -

This is the story of Alienware_fan, a sad and lonely being moving to system wars in an attempt to regain the attention that the PC boards stopped giving him after too many troll/moronic posts.

I'm glad he's found somewhere else to go.

#146 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15724 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@lostrib said:

@Shielder7 said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Even though they are way weaker than any recent high end pcs? Dosent it make pcs waste of resources? Multiplats barely looks better on pc. I coudnt see any difference in rivals 1600p vs 1080p on ps4.

Because no matter how much of a beast machine you have it's still only as good as your monitor. And yes I know a few hermits rocking a 2000$ machine with a 28inc 720p monitor then turn around and tell me how much better it looks than my 50inc HD TV.

...Do they even make 28inch 720p monitors? and who would be dumb enough to buy one

They're pretty common actually, so a lot of people.

I can't even find a 27" under 1080p

The only 27"-28" 720p screens I've seen are TVs, not monitors. There was short period between 2002-2004 where TV brands (Pioneer, LG, etc) marketed LCD TVs without a TV tuner which is essentially a "monitor." But, you wouldn't find them in Best Buy or Wal Mart. They were usually found in Office Supply catalogs and listed as presentation monitors (versus computer monitors).

But when it comes to PC monitors, screen resolution dictated the monitor size. Even 17" 4:3 monitors were already reaching 1024x768 @ 85Hz/1280x1024 @ 60Hz before 720p was widespread. 21" monitors were already at 1900x1600. I doubt anyone would market a 27" 720p screen unless it's a TV.

#147 Edited by Alienware_fan (1492 posts) -

@Alienware_fan said:

@killatwill15 said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

@the_bi99man said:

@Alienware_fan said:

Resolution is the biggest gimmic of them all, res such as 720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good.

Oh look, alienware fan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's new.

Next are you gonna claim that because CGI movies look better than video games, even when they're only 720p, that means video games could catch up to that point without going beyond 720p res?

maybe close?

Absolutely not. Literally impossible. Why? Because massive resolution is one of the biggest reasons that CGI movies can look as good as they do. That's the difference between pre-rendering (CGI movies) and real time rendering (video games). CGI movies are pre-rendered at massive resolutions. Like, beyond 4K. Beyond 8K. Rendered using farms of computers, each more powerful than any gaming system. And even with those rendering farms, it might take hours to render a 5 minute scene. That's where all the detail comes from in the first place. Then, video that's already been rendered is put on a disc, to be displayed at whatever resolution your player/TV allow. 1080p or 720p, or even less, if you're using a DVD, rather than a Bluray.

Video games will have to be rendered at higher resolutions, as well, in order to achieve that level of detail. And the whole point of real time rendering, which allows interactivity (obviously necessary for a video game), is that rendering and displaying are done at the same time, and the rendering is done by the home device (be it a PC or a console), right there while you're playing. And if your PC or console is powerful enough to do that rendering, at the resolution necessary for such detail, there's no reason to display it at a lower resolution.

So basically, what I'm getting at is that, eventually graphic fidelity in video games will reach the point that CGI movies already have, but increasing resolution is one of the many things that will have to be done to get there. Resolution isn't a separate thing from "graphics", as the statement, "720p is perfectly fine as long as the graphics are good", implies. There are many contributing factors to the picture fidelity that many gamers refer to with the blanket label of "graphics", and resolution is one of the most important ones.

whoa slow it down,

im pretty sure he is just jerking your penis skin bro....

unless he is truly that stupid

okay smart guy tell me why crysis 3 even at 1024x768 looks better than most games even at 1600p?

you know crysis 3 can go to 1600p, so your argument makes no sense

So does every other game noob.

#148 Posted by Tessellation (8791 posts) -

Please show me these games because i don't think they even exist.

#149 Edited by Jankarcop (8827 posts) -

Please show me these games because i don't think they even exist.

OP was just trolling. Noone thinks consoles have better gfx.

#150 Posted by foxhound_fox (86815 posts) -

They don't.