|
bioshock headed to PS3 (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| supervisor |
I have been waiting for this news for a long time now.
I am going to get this game when it arrives in stores. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by LionsLair
By the way PC fanboys, im buying a new PC in a year or two when they sort Vista out, or a new version comes out. More importantly when game development gets effecient in developing DX10+ games. I got nothing againt the PC, as im a PC gamer as well, but I rather speak the facts. Im just being a realist about things, as usual. While you guys are being fanboys. :toothless |
Really, there is nothing that makes gaming on Vista too detrimental, especially after SP1.
You keep spurting this idea of $500. Fact of the matter, every single console out there is based on PC architecture. But you are comparing a $500 dedicated machine, to a PC, which is just ridiculous. You can easily take $500 worth of components today, and if you have the balls, build a dedicated OS (which by the way, is EXACTLY what a console is) and it would look better and run faster than current xbox360 and ps3 tiles. Thus from the only two QUANTIFIABLE sources of measurement:
1) Hardware components: PC is 'better' in all respects
2) From OS optimization: PC is still far 'better' as obviously it is a multitasking, multi-support platform that is open-ended to run anything designed under that architecture set. Arguably, the same can be said of any console, however the factor of a dedicated OS, and what that actually means, cannot be ignored.
Also, what exactly are you using to judge a 'better' looking game. Repeatedly, it has been posted that games on a PC simply run faster, from a simply technical perspective. Even PS3 exclusives can't really touch it. Probably one of the 'best looking' games right now is Gran Turismo Prologue, as far as technical specifications go, and PCs were able to produce those kinds of resolutions, with those lighting effects, and those pysics years ago. MGS4 will be phenomenal visually, but will again, from a strictly technical perspective, be unable to compare to textures and scope of world with, say, crysis. So, comparing apples to apples from your context, the PS3 still has not produced anything that is up to par. Not to rag on the console, as I'm a PS3 fanboy at heart. The system has, on a spec sheet, the potential to do some fairly amazing things. However, the architecture is convoluted, and not designed with ease of development in mind. Is it powerful? Yes. Does it have huge potential? I would wager yes. But I doubt that in the life of the system you will see a game that properly deploys the very specific programming nuances to fully use the system.
Thus, it comes back to my original question: how exactly are you judging a 'better' looking game? Since from a purely scientific and measurable perspective, consoles are not up to par, it stands to reason that you are comming in from the side of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and you simply prefer the look of the console games. |
|
|
| spc |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Good ing grief. :stongue: |
+1
The excessive amount of fanboyism from his posts makes me want to throw my ps3 out the window (if/when my ps3 comes back from sony fixed sometime this century) |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by LionsLair
Im sure he wiki'd that.
Pkc why are you defining denial...how am I denying anything? You should define "avoidance" and "ignorance", seriously lulz. I set a perfectly fair goal post for you guys to score thru, but none of you can even step up to the plate with 10 PC games. To prove how poor you guys are at the very straight forward argument I have posed, in response to the idea that PC's are vastly more powerful than the PS3, ill drop that down to 5 games. Lets see 5 games that look better than the top 5 PS3 games, which run a hardware you can buy for just $400. There is no 5 games, and there is no hardware that costs less than $1500 that can compete with PS3's exclusives.
Lions Lair Infinity. PC Fanboy Alliance Zip Zero Stingy with Deniro.
:tongue2
/thread |
Dude, the PC equivalent of the PS3 is like the GeForce 7800GTX, though after the year or so of optimisation, probably the GeForce 7900GTX. That's 2 year old graphics technology which is pretty cheap these days.
I run a GeForce Mobile 7950GTX in my laptop at 1920x1200, running CoD4 and it looks fantastic. Can the PS3 do that resolution? That's a mobile version too. The real 7900GT would massively rape that as well.
If a 2 year old graphics card can match and even exceed the PS3, what do you think one of the recent ones would do? If you only needed to build a tower, a 7800GTX and the necessary components could be built for quite cheap and still mathc your awesome PS3 exclusives.
Don't even try telling me that doesn't count as you need a monitor though because then I could easily say to you that you need a TV too and a good tv that can run 1080p will cost like what? $2000? So there you go, you OMG my graphics are amazing argument just blew it's budget up well past $2500. You know what kind of monster PC you can build for $2500?
Anyway, it's an absolute joke that you keep drivelling on about graphics so much as if it's the be all and end all of gaming.
Zokissima just put it perfectly for you as well and if you discount his argument then wow. Just wow.... |
|
|
| LionsLair |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
Really, there is nothing that makes gaming on Vista too detrimental, especially after SP1.
You keep spurting this idea of $500. Fact of the matter, every single console out there is based on PC architecture. But you are comparing a $500 dedicated machine, to a PC, which is just ridiculous. You can easily take $500 worth of components today, and if you have the balls, build a dedicated OS (which by the way, is EXACTLY what a console is) and it would look better and run faster than current xbox360 and ps3 tiles. Thus from the only two QUANTIFIABLE sources of measurement:
1) Hardware components: PC is 'better' in all respects
2) From OS optimization: PC is still far 'better' as obviously it is a multitasking, multi-support platform that is open-ended to run anything designed under that architecture set. Arguably, the same can be said of any console, however the factor of a dedicated OS, and what that actually means, cannot be ignored.
Also, what exactly are you using to judge a 'better' looking game. Repeatedly, it has been posted that games on a PC simply run faster, from a simply technical perspective. Even PS3 exclusives can't really touch it. Probably one of the 'best looking' games right now is Gran Turismo Prologue, as far as technical specifications go, and PCs were able to produce those kinds of resolutions, with those lighting effects, and those pysics years ago. MGS4 will be phenomenal visually, but will again, from a strictly technical perspective, be unable to compare to textures and scope of world with, say, crysis. So, comparing apples to apples from your context, the PS3 still has not produced anything that is up to par. Not to rag on the console, as I'm a PS3 fanboy at heart. The system has, on a spec sheet, the potential to do some fairly amazing things. However, the architecture is convoluted, and not designed with ease of development in mind. Is it powerful? Yes. Does it have huge potential? I would wager yes. But I doubt that in the life of the system you will see a game that properly deploys the very specific programming nuances to fully use the system.
Thus, it comes back to my original question: how exactly are you judging a 'better' looking game? Since from a purely scientific and measurable perspective, consoles are not up to par, it stands to reason that you are comming in from the side of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and you simply prefer the look of the console games. |
Is this a joke post? :haha:
Read the thread, I already explained your issue. Uber GPU Power =/= Effecient Console Architecture. A GPU can be as powerful as it gets, its bottlenecked by an innefeccient CPU, and an overall ineffecient architecture for making games compared to the PS3 which is a designed dedicated marriage CPU/GPU architecture. |
|
|
| LionsLair |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Dude, the PC equivalent of the PS3 is like the GeForce 7800GTX, though after the year or so of optimisation, probably the GeForce 7900GTX. That's 2 year old graphics technology which is pretty cheap these days.
I run a GeForce Mobile 7950GTX in my laptop at 1920x1200, running CoD4 and it looks fantastic. Can the PS3 do that resolution? That's a mobile version too. The real 7900GT would massively rape that as well.
If a 2 year old graphics card can match and even exceed the PS3, what do you think one of the recent ones would do? If you only needed to build a tower, a 7800GTX and the necessary components could be built for quite cheap and still mathc your awesome PS3 exclusives.
Don't even try telling me that doesn't count as you need a monitor though because then I could easily say to you that you need a TV too and a good tv that can run 1080p will cost like what? $2000? So there you go, you OMG my graphics are amazing argument just blew it's budget up well past $2500. You know what kind of monster PC you can build for $2500?
Anyway, it's an absolute joke that you keep drivelling on about graphics so much as if it's the be all and end all of gaming.
Zokissima just put it perfectly for you as well and if you discount his argument then wow. Just wow.... |
Dont bother with the techno babble, none of you know what your talking about. Show me the good looking exclusive PC games. They dont exist, neither does the discrepency in hardware power you claim, yet cant manage to show me 5 games that are using this so called power you can buy for $200. I think this thread might be a record for ownage of PC fanboys. :toothless |
|
|
| enydo |
Stop saying "none of you know what you're talking about" like you're some ing god and are privy to information none of us could even comprehend.
It's quite annoying. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by LionsLair
Is this a joke post? :haha:
Read the thread, I already explained your issue. Uber GPU Power =/= Effecient Console Architecture. A GPU can be as powerful as it gets, its bottlenecked by an innefeccient CPU, and an overall ineffecient architecture for making games compared to the PS3 which is a designed dedicated marriage CPU/GPU architecture. |
Ok, well if you took what I said sarcastically as a joke, you obviously missed the point. Are you unaware of what a dedicated piece of hardware is? If you want to have a legitimate discussion, I welcome it, but if you reply with nonsensical drivel, don't bother, because you're not typing anything with any real substance. Don't just throw around jargon if you have no intention of backing it up with something quantifiable.
No where in my post did I equate GPU power to anything. What I said is that from a technical perspective, any console is running inferior hardware, plain and simple, but get different results out of it due to the fact that the OS is a dedicated system. However, even with the OS 'optimization' found in consoles, the power of a PC still outweighs it by a mile. Not that the OS found on the PS3 is particularily 'good' or 'optimized'.
You brought up an idea that the architecture for making games is not there on a PC. Having spent the better part of the last 15 years of my life programming in some form, I would say that you are completely wrong on that count. In fact, and as stated previously, ALL games are developed on a PC that emulates the hardware response of the target system. The PS3 does not in fact have the easiest nor most efficient SDK (Standard Development Kit). Further to that, when a game is developed, before the code is compiled into a final run, developers constantly tweak and LOWER settings, resolutions, fill rates, you name it, to get decent results on the target console.
As for your comment of bottlenecks, I'll address that as well. It is incorrect to believe that consoles do not suffer from some form of bottlenecks. How do you argue insufficient fill rates, pop-in, and other problems that are typically associated with a discrepancy in communication of internal components? Also, when a fairly modern PC runs a game and begins to see the effects of 'bottlenecking', it is more often than not found at speeds and settings that FAR outclass the best of what any given console can offer. |
|
|
| LionsLair |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
Ok, well if you took what I said sarcastically as a joke, you obviously missed the point. Are you unaware of what a dedicated piece of hardware is? If you want to have a legitimate discussion, I welcome it, but if you reply with nonsensical drivel, don't bother, because you're not typing anything with any real substance. Don't just throw around jargon if you have no intention of backing it up with something quantifiable.
No where in my post did I equate GPU power to anything. What I said is that from a technical perspective, any console is running inferior hardware, plain and simple, but get different results out of it due to the fact that the OS is a dedicated system. However, even with the OS 'optimization' found in consoles, the power of a PC still outweighs it by a mile. Not that the OS found on the PS3 is particularily 'good' or 'optimized'.
You brought up an idea that the architecture for making games is not there on a PC. Having spent the better part of the last 15 years of my life programming in some form, I would say that you are completely wrong on that count. In fact, and as stated previously, ALL games are developed on a PC that emulates the hardware response of the target system. The PS3 does not in fact have the easiest nor most efficient SDK (Standard Development Kit). Further to that, when a game is developed, before the code is compiled into a final run, developers constantly tweak and LOWER settings, resolutions, fill rates, you name it, to get decent results on the target console.
As for your comment of bottlenecks, I'll address that as well. It is incorrect to believe that consoles do not suffer from some form of bottlenecks. How do you argue insufficient fill rates, pop-in, and other problems that are typically associated with a discrepancy in communication of internal components? Also, when a fairly modern PC runs a game and begins to see the effects of 'bottlenecking', it is more often than not found at speeds and settings that FAR outclass the best of what any given console can offer. |
Your argument is irrelevant drivel. When there arent many games to support your argument. Show me PC games that looking head and shoulders above PS3's exclusives. Everything else is useless garbage in this thread. Evidence is king. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
Again I must ask you to provide 5 good looking PS3 games, so that we have something to compare.
Also
| quote: | | Read the thread, I already explained your issue. Uber GPU Power =/= Effecient Console Architecture. A GPU can be as powerful as it gets, its bottlenecked by an innefeccient CPU, and an overall ineffecient architecture for making games compared to the PS3 which is a designed dedicated marriage CPU/GPU architecture. |
Dedicated as it may be, if its hard to write code for it doesn't really matter. And PS3 is by far the most complicated system to write code for, and you should note, more complicated doesn't equal better. It means sloppy design. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by LionsLair
Dont bother with the techno babble, none of you know what your talking about. Show me the good looking exclusive PC games. They dont exist, neither does the discrepency in hardware power you claim, yet cant manage to show me 5 games that are using this so called power you can buy for $200. I think this thread might be a record for ownage of PC fanboys. :toothless |
Ok, I really don't understand where you're getting at by continually rambling on about 'exclusive games'. What exactly does that mean? Exclusivity is a business concept, and has rarely anything to do with the technical capabilities of a system.
Name games? Take your pick! Where do you want me to start, in the 1990s or something more recent? Because the results will consistently be the same! Graphics on a PC are consistently more advanced. Gameplay options are also more numerous and further in scope and context. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | Originally posted by LionsLair
Your argument is irrelevant drivel.
|
Well actually its not. You started talking crap about bottlenecks, and I explained why your argument was irrelevant.
| quote: |
When there arent many games to support your argument. Show me PC games that looking head and shoulders above PS3's exclusives. Everything else is useless garbage in this thread. Evidence is king. |
Ok. How exactly do you compare an 'exclusive' if the same does not exist on your target of comparison. That's like comparing cars to buses. The idea is the same, but boy is the ride different.
But just to humour you:
RTS: Pick ANY SINGLE GAME from the last year on a PC and it stands head and shoulders from any similar offering on the console. Supreme Commander, Command & Conquer, you name it.
FPS: COD4, Bioshock, Crysis, GOW, any Source game, etc, ad infinitum.
Sports/Racing: Again, pick something! All you have to show is Gran Turismo (which I thoroughly enjoy BTW) and yet we've seen track, environment, and model quality from the LAST generation of PC hardware comparable, if not better. Granted, I can't come up with much, as I don't play the genre that much, and it is not as strongly representative in the PC market as on consoles. Some notables that do come to mind are any FIFA games, any of the old gen Hot Shot golf, hell, like I said, you name it.
Action/Adventure: Same as FPS, as they all use very similar gaming engines, both for consoles and PC, so once again, you pick one. For example, ANY Star Wars action/adventure to see the light of day. |
|
|
|
|
