WHy do the consoles have the best looking games?

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.

@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

@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?

maybe close?

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

Sorry but having all 3,

OP...you are wrong.

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? :)

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".

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Those people are idiots then

I completely agree hermits are idiots.

dat self projection

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%

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

Than why did you say it.

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

We are having a Alienware_fan meltdown.

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..

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.

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.

this will never end

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.

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.

So does every other game noob.

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

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

They don't.