Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC comes 2nd to Consoles AGAIN!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 5:37:27 PM

OK so have any of you read the review of Mass Effect 3? Damn fine game that it is (see link)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/mass-effect-3-performance...

The upshot of it is an HD 6850 manages a high of 62fps and a min of 46fps. Now no disrespect to owners of 6850 cards at all, but when will these bloody publishers develop games to take advantage of high end PC's? It would be a show piece to demo a proper high end system! :fou:  I am so tired of having console ports. Please bear in mind that the example of fps in my rant is of a resolution of 1920 x 1080 something that a console can't truly manage.

I'd like to know the PC community's thoughts?

More about : 2nd consoles

March 8, 2012 5:41:43 PM

well mass effect always was a console game but i agree they really do need to put some time and effort into the pc side of games they would make more sales that way, i was abit disapointed that there was no gpraphic options but hit a constant 60 fps v sync on on a 6870. but there are becoming more and more console ports which annoys me aswell :p 
March 8, 2012 5:44:24 PM

Xbox 360 and PS3 have 1080p. They just don't have the quality settings and AA that PCs have for 1080p. PCs are also much more flexible in resolution and picture quality so you can go to a wide variety of resolutions and MANY variable settings can be set to wahtever you feel is optimal.

However, consoles have their advantages... Despite that, they should be refreshed like once every three to four years instead of these 6,7,8,9 year refresh cycles.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 5:55:52 PM

alphaalphaalpha said:
Xbox 360 and PS3 have 1080p. They just don't have the quality settings and AA that PCs have for 1080p. PCs are also much more flexible in resolution and picture quality so you can go to a wide variety of resolutions and MANY variable settings can be set to wahtever you feel is optimal.

However, consoles have their advantages... Despite that, they should be refreshed like once every three to four years instead of these 6,7,8,9 year refresh cycles.

Yes they do have 1080P but I heard that they don't actually run at 1080P? Please correct me if i'm wrong. I have seen my son's Xbox360 running in HD 1920x1080 supposidly and it doesn't look at all like 1920x1080 on the PC. Can anyone confirm if this is right? My apologies if i'm wrong.
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 6:01:29 PM

Kkkk1 said:
Yes they do have 1080P but I heard that they don't actually run at 1080P? Please correct me if i'm wrong. I have seen my son's Xbox360 running in HD 1920x1080 supposidly and it doesn't look at all like 1920x1080 on the PC. Can anyone confirm if this is right? My apologies if i'm wrong.



The xbox 360 and PS3 normally run games at 720P but upscales the image to 1080P. Some games may have slightly higher or lower resolution than 720P on the 360 - but due to how the 360 works - via software it upconverts the image to 1080P (if thats what you have it set to). So it is not truely "1080P".

If you compare two games on both (PC and 360) platforms - both at 1080P - you will notice a massive difference.
March 8, 2012 6:10:06 PM

If you want to compare them, make sure that the PC is at similar quality settings to the Xbox 260/PS3 to remove any variables other than the one you want to test, purely the difference in the resolution's picture quality.
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 6:20:03 PM

Chainzsaw said:
The xbox 360 and PS3 normally run games at 720P but upscales the image to 1080P. Some games may have slightly higher or lower resolution than 720P on the 360 - but due to how the 360 works - via software it upconverts the image to 1080P (if thats what you have it set to). So it is not truely "1080P".

If you compare two games on both (PC and 360) platforms - both at 1080P - you will notice a massive difference.

Brill thanks for clarifying that for me /us. I still maintain that the PC needs to be given a large chunk of dev time to really show what's possible on today's and tomorrows platform. :) 
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 6:31:10 PM

Kkkk1 said:
Brill thanks for clarifying that for me /us. I still maintain that the PC needs to be given a large chunk of dev time to really show what's possible on today's and tomorrows platform. :) 


Haha what's brill? Some kind of code word?

But yup your right, computers (meaning non-consoles) do require more work, since hardware can be quite different from machine to machine.
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 6:36:11 PM

it's using the old unreal 3 engine. mainly all it's bells and whistles had been blown off ages ago.

but to be fair, the ME franchise is the best iteration of the unreal3 engine ever.
a b U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 6:49:50 PM

Chainzsaw said:
Haha what's brill? Some kind of code word?

But yup your right, computers (meaning non-consoles) do require more work, since hardware can be quite different from machine to machine.

Brill is short for brilliant. :) 
a c 291 U Graphics card
March 8, 2012 6:59:16 PM

I've been playing it on PC since yesterday. The graphics are astonishing. Looks way better than ME2, IMHO. The facial details are very nice, the landscape looks sharp. The only bad thing I could say is the low resolution textures: If you look at something at close range, it will become pixelated. I guess that's what you have to expect from a console port :p 
!