Don't get me wrong, I do realize that the pc will end up having the best graphical version of most games.  From my experience they'll be buggier, in general, than the other versions, but still, the actual gloss is the best.  Not neccessarily saying it looks so much better, but it typically looks as good as the best version (I would say resolution too, but it really depends what they designed the textures at).  Go figure, they don't have to dumb the textures down, they just can say "well get a better card".  But still, it doesn't ever look significantly better, not something you could tell without a direct comparison.

Anyway, when you compare PS3/360 exclusive games to PC exclusives you'll notice one major difference- pc games look mediocre, graphically, in comparison.

There are exceptions to this, Crysis is the best example, but the main company that makes exclusives produce games of rather meh gloss (blizzard).  Valve's the same (although they're a multiplat studio, but they have a pc base).  

When you compare it to the 360/PS3 there's stuff that looks great- Killzone 2, Gears 2, Star Ocean 4, FF13, etc.


So overall, do you guys really think the graphics whore would want to go pc only (even if you're willing to get what you need to max it out) while they'll probably play weak graphical games?
I use to buy kickass gfx cards, but then I realized the majority of my pc gaming time was on Valve titles and stuff like Diablo, and those aren't exactly taxing.

Is it really worth getting a kickass card to be 2 years ahead with that one game, (very) slightly ahead for the multiplats, and behind for the majority of the exclusives?

I can kind of see were you are comming from, so ive decided not to flame you. The problem is that companies that make games exclusively for the PC (stardock, CD projekt red exc.) have very low budgets and limited time to make a game. So instead of focusing on graphics, they focus on gameplay, and they are, most of the time successfull in doing that. Then there are the big companies that make PC exclusives (can only think of Crytek ATM) who have loads of time and money from big publishers like EA. They focus on higher resolutions and polished graphics so that their game looks profesional, but most of the time their projects either end up being underrated and undersold because lets face it, not alot of people have a suped up PC to run said games. So what you get is a double edged sword (i fail at analogies). One side of the coin makes cheap, good quality games and the other makes games for polish. But the bright side to all of this is that 95% of 360 games (and a lesser % of ps3) end up being ported to the PC sooner or later, so naturally we have to compare the PC and 360 version graphically. PC will always win here because of the high resolutions the PC can do (1024x1280 > 780p)

"Don't get me wrong, I do realize that the pc will end up having the best graphical version of most games.  From my experience they'll be buggier, in general, than the other versions, but still, the actual gloss is the best.  Not neccessarily saying it looks so much better, but it typically looks as good as the best version (I would say resolution too, but it really depends what they designed the textures at).  Go figure, they don't have to dumb the textures down, they just can say "well get a better card".  But still, it doesn't ever look significantly better, not something you could tell without a direct comparison.

Anyway, when you compare PS3/360 exclusive games to PC exclusives you'll notice one major difference- pc games look mediocre, graphically, in comparison.

There are exceptions to this, Crysis is the best example, but the main company that makes exclusives produce games of rather meh gloss (blizzard).  Valve's the same (although they're a multiplat studio, but they have a pc base).  

When you compare it to the 360/PS3 there's stuff that looks great- Killzone 2, Gears 2, Star Ocean 4, FF13, etc.


So overall, do you guys really think the graphics whore would want to go pc only (even if you're willing to get what you need to max it out) while they'll probably play weak graphical games?
I use to buy kickass gfx cards, but then I realized the majority of my pc gaming time was on Valve titles and stuff like Diablo, and those aren't exactly taxing.

Is it really worth getting a kickass card to be 2 years ahead with that one game, (very) slightly ahead for the multiplats, and behind for the majority of the exclusives?
"

I think part of what you are seeing is a changing of the PC market.  The games that have generally pushed the graphical envelope are first person shooters.  From Doom to Crysis, those were the cutting edge games, demanding the highest hardware.  But really, this market has mostly moved to consoles, probably in part to Halo, but possibly equally due to the ease of playing online now.  Even though Sony gets crap for their system not being as good as Xbox Live, it is still a good system for playing games online.  You can easily jump online and find lots of people to play with, and everyone's systems run more or less the exact same, keeping everything fair. 

So without those hardcore FPS graphic fiends, the PC market is adjusting.  A company can no longer assume tha players will upgrade hardware for their games.  That is why companies are focusing more on making stable, functional games that play on an everyday computer.  The two premier game companies Valve and Blizzard are prime examples of this.   Now that is not to say you can't make games that scale well.  Left 4 Dead, with its graphics on full, is far prettier than the same game on the Xbox 360.  But most people will play it on a modest system, and games need to be designed with that in mind.

I usually find that he best looking version of game is on the PC. That's because the developer has less restraints.

PC will always have the best graphics indeed, I don't believe Crysis would be playable fully maxed out on a PS3 or on an XBOX360, or on a Wii. Fallout is another example, the pc version is far better then the console versions, specially at higher resolutions.
However, you have to be upgrading your PC all the time to keep it up to date, and games generally have more problems/crashes on PC's then on consoles ( except for the XBOX, which is basically a PC )
And yes, if you are a graphic whore go for PC, or get a PS3 just for Gran Turismo 5 :P.

While people with great PC's can generally squeeze out better graphics than consoles can manage, that is not, as is commonly believed, the strength of the PC as a platform. That strength, from a development standpoint, is mainly development cost. Developing games on the PC is cheap and you can get tools for free.

For the gamer, you have unprecedented backwards compatibility, you have superior input devices (keyboard and mouse and gamepad and joystick and whatever you need) and you have a wider selection of good games across the entire history of game development.

As far as graphics go, further graphics development is redundant. Graphics has not been a significant limitation on vision for years. Physics is where it's at. I'm actually much more interested in physics development than I ever was in graphics. More complex physics simulation can lead to interesting design choices in games, as we have seen in recent years, as far back as Half-Life 2.

"I usually find that he best looking version of game is on the PC. That's because the developer has less restraints."

PC version tends to have bugs because of nonstandard configurations and conflicts with existing programs.
But they almost always look better, I mean, Fallout 3 on consoles looks like PC version on mid-high.

well that depends on your PC doesn't it? ; )

SmugDarkLoser, for ports, that's possible, but for exclusives, I'd blame that on your computer. I think you shouldn't be deriding it - because I applaud developers that make scalable games that work on older computers. If you turn games like STALKER Clear Sky, Left 4 Dead, all the way up to max graphics, it'll exceed what the consoles can do.

There's no denying that PC gaming is more expensive. It is (just not to the extent that some people claim). It can be cheap - but you'll have to suffice with console graphics quality or less. People pay more for PC gaming because there's things about the platform that just are unique to the platform - the ability to play old games, Stream, RTS, MMORPGs, modding and custom maps - that really give the platform the edge.

It's up to you to decide whether the increased cost to play games at a graphic quality that far exceeds what the consoles can do is worth it. PC Gamers think it is.

PC will always have better framerates. I turned down the graphics on my Fallout 3 (no HDR/Bloom lighting or anti-aliasing, but everything else on high-very high), and although it probably looks a little better on 360 and PS3, I've got 60 FPS compared to 40ish. If I wanted I could have amazing graphics running at roughly the same speed as my friend's Xbox version, but I'd rather not.

Same applies to most games, but I'm thinking of installing a second graphics card (8800 GT 512MB right now) so I can have a high framerate and the best looks.

Anyway, when you compare PS3/360 exclusive games to PC exclusives you'll notice one major difference- pc games look mediocre, graphically, in comparison.

"SmugDarkLoser said:

Anyway, when you compare PS3/360 exclusive games to PC exclusives you'll notice one major difference- pc games look mediocre, graphically, in comparison.

Sorry but i cannot in my good mind read that and not comment on that sentence..... Thats an absolutely false statement and would
love to know what games you are refering to, coz it really does seem that you are playing one or two games and that's it, comparing the whole console market to a couple PC titles like WoW which is grossly out-dated and an MMO to boot which would also mean gfx are already turned down because of this so an everyday joe can get online and play comfortably.

Your original post is a very good one, with some good points and i do see where you are comming from, those console tittles you mentioned ARE very good visually... but there other genre's to the PC other then FPS games that have really pushed the boundrys of graphics, such as World In Conflict, C&C 3 - Tiberium Wars and the new Red Alert 3 , the TOCCA car racing series, DiRT , GRID, GTR 2,  Diablo III when it finally gets released along with other tittles stretched accross all genre's.

One of the main issues in this HUGE debate of which platforms are better graphicly, is TV. TV have been the PC games industry killer since the arrival of halo, advertising every single little game happens to get released on either PS3 or 360 showing you only the cutscenes of games really doesn't reflect how the game actually looks when you play it.

What you need to do is find someone who actually has a reasonbly top end machine with some of the latest hardware pcs can have today including a GOOD monitor (cannot stress how important THAT is) and i'll guarentee you'll see the difference in top-flight FPS gaming over any console on the market today. Im gonna provide you with a short list of FPS games i'd like you to play on a top-end rig at around 1900 res. and tell me your thoughts.... i'd really like you to come back and tell me that PC gfx for the most part are mediocre, because i'd bet its your comp and monitor... only the newer flat screens dont deliver you pixleated pictures now.

Far Cry 2
Left 4 Dead
Fallout 3
Mirrors Edge (when its out)
Call Of Duty - world at war
Crysis and Crysis warhead
Bioshock
Stalker - clear sky
Frontlines - Fuel of war
Exodus From the Earth
The Orange Box

------------------------------------------------
And now the upcomming FPS games that already will be supreme graphicly on a nice PC rig

They
Doom 4
Chrome 2
Legendary
The Hunt
Cryostasis - The sleep of Reason



"

Oh, uh, just thought I'd leave this here.

Thanks for the positive responses in general guys.

Anyway, to atejas, I realize crysis is the best graphical game as of now, but looking at something like Killzone 2, which almost looks as good, better in certain respects, is it really worth the price difference.
And for the record, the crysis shot is very ugly.  You really should have used a max screenshot. That looks like low settings.




And then there's stuff like Banjo: N&B, FF13, SO4, and whatnot that look great graphically.  I wouldn't say they are as good as Crysis at all, but they're certainly pleasing to the eyes. '

I'm mainly bringing up this topic because I've been a pc gamer for a bit now and I'm sort of stopping getting high priced cards and settling for the slightly older ones. And to be honest, it just feels like console games have a high graphical standard for good games by comparison.  It's probably just because pc devs want the most people to play their games as possible, something they don't have to worry about on consoles

Man, kind of off topic but, that Killzone 2 shot is blurred to fuck. Dont get me wrong, I cant wait for K2, but they went a little overboard with the blur.

Smug, that looks fucking awesome and all, but two things
1- i'm running on high, not very high
2- motion blur all over the fucking place.
The specular and environment looks nothing short of beautiful.

hmm.. Gothic 3, Age of Conan, World in Conflict, Supreme Commander, Jericho, Stalker with mods comes to mind.

There's a difference between something being eye candy and nice to look at because of its art style, and something being eye candy more so because it is technically impressive. KZ2 is both of those, there is no doubting that, but the textures in some areas still are made low res to balance everything else out.(even if its not that noticable) Crysis still, visually, is and will be the best looking game that is out technically and all over the place. At least another year or two(more most likely) it will still be the best looking game....and the game to surpass it won't be a console game, that's for sure.

The PC is capable of looking better, significantly better but not surprisingly better. And although I have never played Crysis, I'm playing Far Cry 2 in 720p HD on the Box and compared to the footage of Crysis that I have seen my Far Cry 2 looks better. But Far Cry 2 on the PC most probably looks better than mine. I don't think it is worth it, though. I simply enjoy console gaming more.

"

The PC is capable of looking better, significantly better but not surprisingly better. And although I have never played Crysis, I'm playing Far Cry 2 in 720p HD on the Box and compared to the footage of Crysis that I have seen my Far Cry 2 looks better. But Far Cry 2 on the PC most probably looks better than mine. I don't think it is worth it, though. I simply enjoy console gaming more.

"

"BiggerBomb said:

"

The PC is capable of looking better, significantly better but not surprisingly better. And although I have never played Crysis, I'm playing Far Cry 2 in 720p HD on the Box and compared to the footage of Crysis that I have seen my Far Cry 2 looks better. But Far Cry 2 on the PC most probably looks better than mine. I don't think it is worth it, though. I simply enjoy console gaming more.

"

Exactly though, compared to the 'footage you've seen', trust me its not a debate , Crysis still looks far better than Far Cry 2 does, but Far Cry 2 does look very impressive , and its amazing how good the quality is even on the consoles for that game. I got FC2 on PC, and it looks amazing, but the textures are far far lower quality than Crysis's are. FC2 only looks the best when you have the sun shining right on your player, and the lighting really takes the game then...but Crysis looks good all the time, and doesn't need lighting and such to hide things that don't look so good."

"So overall, do you guys really think the graphics whore would want to go pc only (even if you're willing to get what you need to max it out) while they'll probably play weak graphical games?"

"SmugDarkLoser said:

"So overall, do you guys really think the graphics whore would want to go pc only (even if you're willing to get what you need to max it out) while they'll probably play weak graphical games?"

I think the issue is that each new generation of video cards is only slightly better than the generation before.  We're not seeing the jumps where the latest card looks significantly better than a card that was released one or two years ago.  While I think video cards will continue to improve for a long time, you can see that they're starting to level off.  So, while the PC will continue to hold the title for best looking graphics simply due to the ability to upgrade at any time, this graphical edge is becoming less and less noticeable.

I'd like to start seeing cards dedicated to physics and/or AI.  It'd be interesting to start seeing AI that becomes indistinguishable from a human players or games that can take physics to a whole new level.  Even a game as simple as World of Goo would be able to make awesome use of a physics card.  Physics cards would also be great for handling destructible terrain."

PC games can never be expected to look as good as consoles for one reason. They are not consistent. When a developer comes to make a game for a console, he's always going to know what specifications he's going to be working with. That isn't true for PC. Someone might have an extremely good graphics card while someone might have a terrible one, and a PC developer has to try and compensate for that. PC games have the ability to look better, but more often then not, the lack of having a consistent spec hurts PC's. 

I don't know where this "PS3/360 exclusive games look better" came from. But it's the most wrong statement ever made.