Last message on previous page: Another thing is that PS3 games will improve over time, look at the first ps2 game and look at the quality graphics on the recent games.
The same will be with ps3 so the graphic you see now are the start of whats to come.
So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades
Another thing is that PS3 games will improve over time, look at the first ps2 game and look at the quality graphics on the recent games.
The same will be with ps3 so the graphic you see now are the start of whats to come.
So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades
The moderate gamers PC with an 8800 has more graphics power than a PS3 does period so even with the better development and programming in years to come, the PC will not need to be upgraded if you own a G80 or R600 with a decent CPU.
"computers win already at launch, but they'll need to be upgraded alot in 5 yrs. to keep up."
niiiiiiice TurkzZ. i bet you test very well in logic.
but, on the other hand, i have a question. why do console games "suck" to begin with? i mean, they certainly don't suck in all aspects, but when you get to the release of the next-gen, current-gen games look just as good in most cases. and i don't mean just LOOK as good, i mean they play as well and have great (sometimes better) stories. why does it take so long for developers to get their stones rolling? does the same thing happen in consoles and i just missed it? b/c i believe a very early dx9 game, Farcry, still stands up very well. i don't mean this to be anti-console, i mean it to be anti-holding out the good stuff.
Another thing is that PS3 games will improve over time, look at the first ps2 game and look at the quality graphics on the recent games.
The same will be with ps3 so the graphic you see now are the start of whats to come.
So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades
LMFAO there is so much wrong in this post I dont even know where to begin . First of all a high end gaming PC such as mine with a 8800GTX combined with a Core 2 CPU will be just as powerful 5 years from now as it is today and I think we can all agree excluding console tards that a PC with a 8800GTX and a Core 2 will pretty much bitch slap any console that is currently available.
Now while it is true that games got considerably better on the PS2 over time don't expect that same progression with the PS3. The GPU in the PS2 was unlike anything else at the time and it took a good while for the developers to utilize its power, now with the PS3 we basically have a GPU that is well known by now among game developers (basically an underclocked 7800GTX whos architecture has been around for a good while now).
Basically what it comes down too is any computer that is currently stronger than a PS3 will have just as much of a lead over it 5 yrs down the road and thats without upgrades. You console Fanbois love to think that a PC gets weaker over time but the fact is the software for pc gaming develops at a rapid rate thus the need for upgrades to play the latest and greatest on the highest possible settings.
The PS3 will take no more than 2yrs max to tap out, that leaves you with a stagnet console for 3 more years while the PC continues to pull farther and farther away.
I realize that PCs are obviously upgradable and have greater functionality, but do top-of-the-line PC systems really run games faster? Do they look better than the PS3?
From what I've seen of first-generation PS3 games, they look the same if not better than dual core, sli solutions on the PC.
Comparing PC games vs PS3 is like comparing hot burnette and hot blonde girl. Both are hot, just different flavor.
hahaha! I love that comment , and I agree.
Pc's are obviously more powerful and at the rate new technology is coming out it will always have an upper had compared to any console.
Not that that PS3 is shit, its not, its great.....but thats about it...its a console. You wont be able to take out its processor in a year and say " i think i'll buy the new 32 core processor for my PS3". Just not gonna happen. The only upgrade path for PS3 will be more "externally" based things + a few internal stuff like hard drives.....or at the end of that a PS4.
but price wise PS3 is cheaper as well, i mean getting a PC and keeping it in line for 5-6 years , and gettng it to run gaems at the level a ps3 would is ganna cost ALOT OF CASH.
The ps3 is a one off payment and will last you 6 years at the very least, no hassel, no upgrade , overcloock nonsense, just pure gaming quality.
Now im not some sort of PS3 fan boy, i just feel the two machines are different. I mean PC isint all about gamng while the ps3 is.
So price wise, and also performance wise ill still opt for the PS3.
Also how many of us have the money to keep upgradeing PC's every year, when i Buy a PC it lasts me 3-5 years and if lucky i change the grapichs card and upgrade the ram.
And that Gfx card i buy when i get the pc wont last me 3 years let alone 5 - 6
my friend got one, and it was pretty cool. I don't the controller is too much of a novelty. If I got one, I could actually see myself using the controller a few years from now. BTW, twilight princess owns; appearantly it's 70 hours long, but interesting the whole time.
i talked to a friend who has one, and i'm totally buying myself a wii! no amazing graphics, no blu-ray, no renowned online, but its got twilight princess, ssb:brawl, and metroid: corruption. i'm goin for it. when does another shipment come in?
70 hours.... YES! i love long games.
i'm totally goin head first into this next-gen deal, but i have a question... can the wii remote get like uncalibrated or something? are sensor bars expensive? and wtf is the deal with using candles as sensors?
I realize that PCs are obviously upgradable and have greater functionality, but do top-of-the-line PC systems really run games faster? Do they look better than the PS3?
From what I've seen of first-generation PS3 games, they look the same if not better than dual core, sli solutions on the PC.
Maybe it's the high-def displays?
When F.E.A.R. is released, if you get the chance to play it on the PS3, it would be a good idea to compare it to the PC version. For reference, it'll be running at 1280x720 so it's already suffering from a resolution disadvantage in comparison to most high resolution displays.
Even on my slightly dated system with 7800GTs, I play F.E.A.R. at 1680x1050 with 4xAA 16xAF. At 1680x1050, the resolution is nearly 2x as high as what the PS3 and Xbox360 output, and an LCD like mine can be purchased for $300.
of course PCs are more powerful than a consul. How could the PS3 be more powerful than a PC? wouldn't the PC manufactures figure out a way to jerry-rig the PS3 parts to fit on a PC. There is a reason ATI and Nvidia don't advertise their PS3 or x360 graphics. It's because their PC conterparts are far more powerful. The RISC processor in the PS3 relies on 7 cores and a central PPE that can distribute the load of threads productively but often it can't and cycles are wasted. So the processor is actually pretty ineffective.
I just watched the video in your sig, and.... I think that it convinced me. THE PS3 IS THE MOST POWERFULL THING ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH ALL HAIL THE CELL YES.....
....NOT!!!!!, that was honestly the most bogus video ive ever watched. "A normal pc processor can only handle one task at a time"...... WTF!!!!! ? why is it that our dual cores can handle more then we can possibly throw at them..... seriously Sony BS MORE.
do top-of-the-line PC systems really run games faster? Do they look better than the PS3?
Yes and Yes. I can promise you that when Oblivion is released for the PS3 it will not run at the same level of detail as it does on my PC nor will it run anywhere near as fast.
Lets also not forget that DX10 is right around the corner and that is not something that the PS3 will be capable of running because it is hardware limited.
Two of the biggest gripes I have with the PS3-no aa and no af=ugly textures in the not so far off distance.
So for gamin i belive PS3 is better and wins, mainly beceuse for a PC to compeat with PS3 over 5 years it will need many upgrades
I can't agree with you there Turk. What I was saying is that the graphics on the PS3 are ALREADY outdated! There is no competition between the PC and PS3. The PS3 is using graphics are are on par with technology that was available more than a year ago.
For a true gamer who wants to be at the cutting edge of technology and be able to play the latest games with the best graphics, your only choice is a PC. Yes, you may have to upgrade a couple times in the next five years to be cutting edge, but who wants to be stuck with a graphics ceiling of 5 years ago???
I'm sure that PS3 games will look better over time, but they will eventually reach a cap. And so far, from the reviews I've seen, the games available for the PS3 don't look much different than the PS2. Which is what many have attested to here already. The difference in graphics between the PS2 and PS3 as far as the technology contained in the console are not that different.
Also, some people are saying, "The graphics for {insert game name} look the same on the PC as they do on the PS3." I call BS. First of all, if you set the PC settings to the highest playable settings and they look the same as the PS3 graphics, then it is either a programming limitation or the computer monitor they are using is graphically limited.
The only way that consoles can be graphically competitive with a PC is if they integrate a mechanism where the gamer can swap video processors perhaps on a yearly basis. Kind of like you can swap hard drives now.
Mostly because the games are what i grew up on of course vastly upgraded. That and the ability to actualy play the original games that got me into gaming is a huge perk for me. Obvioulsy the choice isnt because of graphical power or anything but when it comes to consoles the most important thing is the games since i cant buy and crossplatform them like on a PC
I've prefered PC over console, since I've had my father P3 to compare to PS2, for ease of control in FPS. I'm still a PCGamer (no publicity here ) but I might very well get a Wii with the money I'll get from my parents for Christmes. That of course is if there's leftover after I purchase my new PC.
Bad joke aside, Wii a great to play because of it's remote. I've tried it at my friend house and it's a blast to play. Plus, I won't need an HDTV to enjoy. The low price doesn't hurt either.
lordaardvark2 
lordaardvark2 
. First of all a high end gaming PC such as mine with a 8800GTX combined with a Core 2 CPU will be just as powerful 5 years from now as it is today and I think we can all agree excluding console tards that a PC with a 8800GTX and a Core 2 will pretty much bitch slap any console that is currently available.
