Were Consoles EVER Ahead Of PC?

  • 138 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for black_chamber99
#1 Posted by black_chamber99 (1696 posts) -

was there ever a point in time when consoles were ahead of what could be done on PC, or have consoles always been obsolete on release?

Avatar image for Vatusus
#2 Posted by Vatusus (7771 posts) -

If you're strictly speaking about hardware no, I dont think so

Now if by "ahead" you mean being better/superior then imho they always were. Their games always appeal to me more then PCs

Avatar image for mems_1224
#3 Posted by mems_1224 (56914 posts) -
probably not but the pc wouldn't be the gaming machine it is without consoles. consoles established a market and grew from there. gaming is popular because of consoles and pc continues to push gaming forward. they've both been equally important imo
Avatar image for tom_woolley
#4 Posted by tom_woolley (223 posts) -

After the arcade days consoles were introducede into the home, at this point pc's weren't being used for games in the household so I guess they were ahead.

Avatar image for Plagueless
#5 Posted by Plagueless (2569 posts) -
At the VERY beginning of this gen (when the 360 launched) up until about the time Oblivion came out, the 360 looked just as good if not better than most of the PC versions. Once Oblivion came out though it was over.
Avatar image for iamrob7
#6 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

Not really, maybe in the 90's at points when PC's weren't so geared towards gaming, it's hard to tell. The current console generation was already behind the PC on launch, although the Xbox360 was on a par with a high end gaming PC at the time. Those were the early days of GPU's becoming a major technology in PC gaming though, nowadays things are different. GPU's jump in power more often and more noteably because of the huge market for them.

Avatar image for halogreatest
#7 Posted by halogreatest (134 posts) -
Graphics aren't all that matters..
Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#8 Posted by br0kenrabbit (15067 posts) -

After the arcade days consoles were introducede into the home, at this point pc's weren't being used for games in the household so I guess they were ahead.

tom_woolley

I've had a gaming PC in my house since the C64 in the mid-80s. And actually, when the video game market crashed in the early-mid 80's only Computer Gaming remained unaffected: the consoles all died while computer gamers were getting such classics as Wizardry, Ultima (which is the root of all JRPGs), M.U.L.E., etc.

Avatar image for ZombeGoast
#9 Posted by ZombeGoast (437 posts) -

The Dreamcast was really advanced with games like Shenmue, Soul Caliber and Dead or Alive 2.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#10 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22088 posts) -

Sure. N64.

I don't recall the PC having anything like Wave Race 64 back in 1996, not even with the later 3dfx Voodoo and Voodoo 2. The other consoles of the time (PSX, Saturn) didn't have anything as good either. Besides being a fun game to play, it's one reason why I'm very fond of it.

Wave Race 64

Avatar image for Z-Fatalis
#11 Posted by Z-Fatalis (1058 posts) -

Hermits get a boner over graphics

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
#12 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (10532 posts) -

Sure. N64.

I don't recall the PC having anything like Wave Race 64 back in 1996, not even with the later 3dfx Voodoo and Voodoo 2. The other consoles of the time (PSX, Saturn) didn't have anything as good either. Besides being a fun game to play, it's one reason why I'm very fond of it.

Wave Race 64

jun_aka_pekto
quake was 1996. Waverace being a racer has a clear advantage in screenshots but I don't think there is a comparison in technical aspects
Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#13 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22088 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Sure. N64.

I don't recall the PC having anything like Wave Race 64 back in 1996, not even with the later 3dfx Voodoo and Voodoo 2. The other consoles of the time (PSX, Saturn) didn't have anything as good either. Besides being a fun game to play, it's one reason why I'm very fond of it.

Wave Race 64

GunSmith1_basic

quake was 1996. Waverace being a racer has a clear advantage in screenshots but I don't think there is a comparison in technical aspects

The water physics in Wave Race 64 was something totally new (and welcome). The gameplay was also totally fluid. The best PCs in 1996 would've have a hard time running Quake at 640x480 and keep framerates a consistent 20 fps because it used software mode at the time. The 3dfx Voodoo wasn't widespread until January 1997. I got mine in December 1996 only because of a promotion from Computability who regarded me as a valued customer (I spent a lot of money on them back then).

Avatar image for wis3boi
#14 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

N64 I think for a short time, that's about it. No, this gen wasn't better than PC out the gate, we had very beefy GPUs, and crossfire/SLI options, then right as the PS3 released, the 8800 GTX came out and spit in their faces

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#15 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (22933 posts) -

The Dreamcast was really advanced with games like Shenmue, Soul Caliber and Dead or Alive 2.

ZombeGoast
Shenmue came out in 1999. Half Life came out in 1998, which was well ahead of what Shenmue was capable of producing.
Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#16 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (22933 posts) -

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

Sure. N64.

I don't recall the PC having anything like Wave Race 64 back in 1996, not even with the later 3dfx Voodoo and Voodoo 2. The other consoles of the time (PSX, Saturn) didn't have anything as good either. Besides being a fun game to play, it's one reason why I'm very fond of it.

Wave Race 64

jun_aka_pekto

quake was 1996. Waverace being a racer has a clear advantage in screenshots but I don't think there is a comparison in technical aspects

The water physics in Wave Race 64 was something totally new (and welcome). The gameplay was also totally fluid. The best PCs in 1996 would've have a hard time running Quake at 640x480 and keep framerates a consistent 20 fps because it used software mode at the time. The 3dfx Voodoo wasn't widespread until January 1997. I got mine in December 1996 only because of a promotion from Computability who regarded me as a valued customer (I spent a lot of money on them back then).

What about OpenGL? When was that popular?
Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#17 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18546 posts) -

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#18 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (22933 posts) -

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

turtlethetaffer
:roll:
Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#19 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22088 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"] quake was 1996. Waverace being a racer has a clear advantage in screenshots but I don't think there is a comparison in technical aspectsDragonfireXZ95

The water physics in Wave Race 64 was something totally new (and welcome). The gameplay was also totally fluid. The best PCs in 1996 would've have a hard time running Quake at 640x480 and keep framerates a consistent 20 fps because it used software mode at the time. The 3dfx Voodoo wasn't widespread until January 1997. I got mine in December 1996 only because of a promotion from Computability who regarded me as a valued customer (I spent a lot of money on them back then).

What about OpenGL? When was that popular?

The first wide use of OpenGL (for games) I know of is the 3dfx variant*. That's why 3dfx and the Quake games were perfect complements.

* I eagerly awaited the 3dfx patch for Quake that turned it into GLQuake. That's why people should distinguish Quake from GLQuake. GLQuake was heaven on Earth. Quake? Bleh. :lol:

Overclockers should thank Quake though. Quake in software mode was so bad, it singlehandedly popularized overclocking on the PC.

Avatar image for black_chamber99
#20 Posted by black_chamber99 (1696 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombeGoast"]

The Dreamcast was really advanced with games like Shenmue, Soul Caliber and Dead or Alive 2.

DragonfireXZ95

Shenmue came out in 1999. Half Life came out in 1998, which was well ahead of what Shenmue was capable of producing.

LOL, yeah right

shenmue

Shenmue_Set2_284.jpg

half life

halflife.jpg

not to mention shenmue was open world with hundreds of npc's populating the world with their own daily routines. shenmue was way ahead of half life from a technical standpoint

Avatar image for OB-47
#21 Posted by OB-47 (10909 posts) -

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

DragonfireXZ95

:roll:

He's so bad for preferring games on console over PC!

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#22 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (22933 posts) -

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="ZombeGoast"]

The Dreamcast was really advanced with games like Shenmue, Soul Caliber and Dead or Alive 2.

black_chamber99

Shenmue came out in 1999. Half Life came out in 1998, which was well ahead of what Shenmue was capable of producing.

LOL, yeah right

shenmue

Shenmue_Set2_284.jpg

half life

halflife.jpg

not to mention shenmue was open world with hundreds of npc's populating the world with their own daily routines. shenmue was way ahead of half life from a technical standpoint

Uh huh. And the rest of these?

8.jpg

6.jpg

26.jpg

18.jpg

Avatar image for black_chamber99
#23 Posted by black_chamber99 (1696 posts) -

[QUOTE="black_chamber99"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] Shenmue came out in 1999. Half Life came out in 1998, which was well ahead of what Shenmue was capable of producing.DragonfireXZ95

LOL, yeah right

shenmue

Shenmue_Set2_284.jpg

half life

halflife.jpg

not to mention shenmue was open world with hundreds of npc's populating the world with their own daily routines. shenmue was way ahead of half life from a technical standpoint

Uh huh. And the rest of these?

8.jpg

6.jpg

26.jpg

18.jpg

and half life 1 at its best still doesn't look better than the worst screens you could find

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#24 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (22933 posts) -

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

[QUOTE="black_chamber99"]

LOL, yeah right

shenmue

Shenmue_Set2_284.jpg

half life

halflife.jpg

not to mention shenmue was open world with hundreds of npc's populating the world with their own daily routines. shenmue was way ahead of half life from a technical standpoint

black_chamber99

Uh huh. And the rest of these?

8.jpg

6.jpg

26.jpg

18.jpg

and half life 1 at its best still doesn't look better than the worst screens you could find

You know that pic you posted? That's a high res pic posted from a PC emulator.

Anyway, they are pretty close. Shenmue is a year newer, which is kinda sad.

1F83F1038C831BCACE6BE837E470C0E16185DCA4

Avatar image for AntiType
#25 Posted by AntiType (6249 posts) -

I agree with N64. It took the PC a long time to get something that looked better than mario 64 and waverace 64.

Avatar image for nameless12345
#26 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

NES in the 80s (DOS PC was sucking back then), Turbografx-16 (even Amiga owners were turned on by it), Neo-Geo (arcade machine in the form of a console), 3DO (for a short time it had better graphics than PC altho that's debatable due to Doom being far superior on PC), PSX (super fast 3D graphics), N64 (hardware filtered 3D graphics), Dreamcast (sh*tload of polygons), PS2 (the launch games sucked but GT3's cars looked better than anything back then), Xbox (pixel shading before PC games), 360 (parallax mapping before PC games, unified shaders)

That's about it.

But I'm talking strictly about game graphics.

In raw power, PC was always ahead.

Avatar image for Ly_the_Fairy
#27 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8541 posts) -

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

turtlethetaffer

Does this have to do with the fact that you own consoles, but no gaming PC?

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
#28 Posted by AdrianWerner (28438 posts) -

Yes, when PSX launched. Also...PS2 graphics were ahead of PC ones in 2000, same (altough to a smaller degree) with Xbox in 2001. This gen was actually the first one where consoles didn't surpass PC graphically at launch

Avatar image for mariokart64fan
#29 Posted by mariokart64fan (20535 posts) -

yes in the snes nes and at the start of this gen

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
#30 Posted by AdrianWerner (28438 posts) -

yes in the snes nes and at the start of this gen

mariokart64fan

NES? Yes

SNES? Nope. PCs already were doing 3d graphics by the time SNES launched and also has VGA standard

Avatar image for ShadowsDemon
#31 Posted by ShadowsDemon (10051 posts) -
I don't think so, no.
Avatar image for nameless12345
#32 Posted by nameless12345 (15125 posts) -

[QUOTE="mariokart64fan"]

yes in the snes nes and at the start of this gen

AdrianWerner

NES? Yes

SNES? Nope. PCs already were doing 3d graphics by the time SNES launched and also has VGA standard

Actually, SNES was pretty competitive.

PC:

3413-keen1.jpg

ELT200711042228570905485.JPG

SNES:

super-mario-world.jpg

pilotwings.jpg

Avatar image for Timstuff
#33 Posted by Timstuff (26839 posts) -

PC games often lacked the budgets that console games had, since high-end PC games were a more niche market. Although, the gap has narrowed considerably now that the cost of PC development has gotten quite cheap thanks to all the middleware that's available today. It's a lot easier to tap into the PC's power without going overbudget than it was back in 1999, when we were still in somewhat of the broze age.

Avatar image for arto1223
#34 Posted by arto1223 (4412 posts) -

Nope. At release, consoles are typically more powerful that what a majority of PCs are using, but there are always people that are running SLI/XFire setups with crazy powerfull rigs that just put the consoles to shame.

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
#35 Posted by AdrianWerner (28438 posts) -

Actually, SNES was pretty competitive.

SNES:

super-mario-world.jpg

pilotwings.jpg

nameless12345

Still far behind PC. PC was doing real 3D back then, unlike fake one in Pilotwings

another-world-videogame-1991.gif

gunship-2000_5.png

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#36 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18546 posts) -

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

Ly_the_Fairy

Does this have to do with the fact that you own consoles, but no gaming PC?

No. It has everything to do with the fact that there are more games on consoles and handhelds that interest me than on PC. Yeah it happens. Get over it.

Avatar image for Timstuff
#37 Posted by Timstuff (26839 posts) -

As I recall, the SNES struggled just to play a very dumbed down port of Wing Commander, which was a pretty old game by the time it hit the SNES.

IaT2o.gif

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#38 Posted by freedomfreak (49739 posts) -
I think Gears of War was graphics king for like 7 seconds.
Avatar image for kraken2109
#39 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

turtlethetaffer

Does this have to do with the fact that you own consoles, but no gaming PC?

No. It has everything to do with the fact that there are more games on consoles and handhelds that interest me than on PC. Yeah it happens. Get over it.

Shame this thread is about hardware performance, not where your favorite games are.
Avatar image for madmenno
#40 Posted by madmenno (1528 posts) -
The thing is, with a little knowledeg PC's are 100% backward compatible so at the moment of getting one you hundreds of thousands (or millions) of games at your disposal. No console can fight this. Consoles aim for a certain type of public and that cuts in on the amount of genres made available. Another discussion would be the controller vs KB/M since most genres will play awkward and/or slow with a controller. When i console just comes out it has fairly decent graphics compared PC that is priced the same. But will soon fall behind. Also a developer has much more control over the efficiency of a PC game rather then a console game.
Avatar image for madmenno
#41 Posted by madmenno (1528 posts) -
[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Does this have to do with the fact that you own consoles, but no gaming PC?

kraken2109

No. It has everything to do with the fact that there are more games on consoles and handhelds that interest me than on PC. Yeah it happens. Get over it.

Shame this thread is about hardware performance, not where your favorite games are.

I did not read that from the poll or OP. But to elaborate, PC offers a huge amount of games and genres. If console fanboys look a bit further and explore some new genres consoles will be doomed.
Avatar image for kraken2109
#42 Posted by kraken2109 (13271 posts) -
[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

No. It has everything to do with the fact that there are more games on consoles and handhelds that interest me than on PC. Yeah it happens. Get over it.

madmenno
Shame this thread is about hardware performance, not where your favorite games are.

I did not read that from the poll or OP. But to elaborate, PC offers a huge amount of games and genres. If console fanboys look a bit further and explore some new genres consoles will be doomed.

I thought it was kind of obvious - first option in the poll: 'Yes, there have been times when console was more powerful than PC'
Avatar image for pelvist
#43 Posted by pelvist (6617 posts) -

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

[QUOTE="black_chamber99"]

LOL, yeah right

shenmue

/snip

half life

/snip

not to mention shenmue was open world with hundreds of npc's populating the world with their own daily routines. shenmue was way ahead of half life from a technical standpoint

black_chamber99

Uh huh. And the rest of these?

/snip

and half life 1 at its best still doesn't look better than the worst screens you could find

I agree, Shenmue at the time was probably the best loking game I had ever seen. One of my favorite games ever too.

Avatar image for black_chamber99
#44 Posted by black_chamber99 (1696 posts) -

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

No. It has everything to do with the fact that there are more games on consoles and handhelds that interest me than on PC. Yeah it happens. Get over it.

madmenno

Shame this thread is about hardware performance, not where your favorite games are.

I did not read that from the poll or OP. But to elaborate, PC offers a huge amount of games and genres. If console fanboys look a bit further and explore some new genres consoles will be doomed.

get back on topic. this is not about what your prefer

Avatar image for percuvius2
#45 Posted by percuvius2 (1982 posts) -

Only once at the launch of the 360 it had a more powerful GPU architecture than what was available on PC graphics cards, but that timed exclusivitey probably cost MS some serious coin. Within a short period of time PC was enjoying the lead again and never looked back.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#46 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (22088 posts) -

I agree with N64. It took the PC a long time to get something that looked better than mario 64 and waverace 64.

AntiType

Nah. Just the water physics of both games. It did make me giggle with delight though.:lol:

Avatar image for glez13
#47 Posted by glez13 (9745 posts) -

Usually in every gen there has been at least one console that on release offers the latest there is. But they were always overshadowed by arcades and then PC's.

Avatar image for Zubinen
#48 Posted by Zubinen (2555 posts) -

[QUOTE="AntiType"]

I agree with N64. It took the PC a long time to get something that looked better than mario 64 and waverace 64.

jun_aka_pekto

Nah. Just the water physics of both games. It did make me giggle with delight though.:lol:

I loved playing Waverace 64 as well as Wipeout 64, I still play Wipeout 2048 on my PS Vita when waiting for class to begin, it would be nice to see a Wipeout game on PC though in its full 120 fps glory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-BEJ4ivdX8&hd=1&t=25s in the earlier days of PC there have been some times where consoles were ahead, we're talking about the days before GPUs even existed. For this generation, the GTX 8800 came out the same week as the PS3 and a single GTX 8800 can run Crysis 2 with better image quality than the console versions(considering consoles run it slightly below 720p native resolution with a lot of objects removed) while maintaining double the framerates, and that's before considering multiple gpu setups.

It would be nice if some day those interested in games that require any sort of control over cursor/crosshair or turning play said games on PC hence the games would be better designed around an optimal control scheme(w.r.t shooters for instance) especially since these sort of games tend to be more resource intensive(but on fixed console hardware this leads to lower fov, lower native resolutions, more blur, etc. over time rather than definitive improvements in image quality) while on consoles we get more games that controllers are actually good for such as just about any game with 2D movement such as fighting games, shmups, and platformers and games like Infamous 2 and SMG2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkroLroovM8&hd=1&t=2m41s

Avatar image for kidsareAjoke
#49 Posted by kidsareAjoke (292 posts) -

Yes mario 64 had 3d acceleration when no pc games had it.

Avatar image for Ly_the_Fairy
#50 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8541 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="turtlethetaffer"]

Yes, right now. there are more games I want on consoles than on PC.

turtlethetaffer

Does this have to do with the fact that you own consoles, but no gaming PC?

No. It has everything to do with the fact that there are more games on consoles and handhelds that interest me than on PC. Yeah it happens. Get over it.

That's quite an angry response to my question.