Originally Posted by gamer7
I remeber seeing shots of Devil May Cry 4 and thinking "Damn this looks just like real life." That's what I think of when I think of next gen games though I doubt the actual games will look like that.
Anyway even if the the video card in the PS3 was significantly less powerful then the 7800GTX (which it shouldn't be because Sony said it will be more powerful then two 6800 ultras) the games will still look better then what you have coming out on the pc. Look how much has come out of the ps2 emotion engine, you would never even think of getting anywhere near the same graphics out of a pc with the same specs. Now developers are writting specifically for the video card and cell processor. When they develop a game for the pc they have to accomodate a huge range of systems, there is no way your 7800GTX is reaching anywhere near it's full potential in terms of graphics so it's unfair to say "it won't look any better then what the 7800GTX can put out", you havent seen what the card can do in a rig optimized for one thing, gaming.
And that's just what it's supposed to do, when I'm going to put down $400 (or even $500 if it sells for that) for the PS3 I'll know that I'm getting my money's worth. Plus one thing that no one mentioned is that I will be able to play it on my 42" HDTV in 720p not my little 17" pc monitor and play with other people when they come over.
Well firstly, I was comparing the famed R500 "Xenon" Xbox 360 GPU to a 7800GTX, not the RSX, since the RSX is supposedly nothing more than a 7800GTX anyway.
I've already conceded the fact that even with a less powerful system, a console will continue to have good graphics compared to a PC for longer period of time, it's a simple concept, dedicated purpose. Will it have better
graphics? No way, all the games you play on your consoles were designed on a computer to begin with. And that's the thing about a computer, it can do so, so many more things than a game console can. For that, we pay a small price in performance, but I'd rather have the flexibility myself. Game developers still have to accomdate system differences with consoles, unless they want to write three diffrent games for each of the major systems. With a PC, you have AMD and Intel, which are both x86 processors, and nVidia and ATi, and differences aren't that great, not really a good point. I think it's quite fair to say it won't look any better than what my PC can do because even now, the only new-gen consoles games are just PC port overs that looks no better, and a lot of times, worse, than their PC versions. And while PC hardware evolves and gets better, your console hardware just keeps getting older and older.
Upgradability is also key, sure the PS2 may look pretty good for its age, but it's no comparison to what's on PC right now, or what was two years ago, and unlike the PC, you cannot go and buy a new graphics card for the PS2, no, instead you have to wait for the ~5 yearly update to the systems for better graphics.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can hook up my computer to a 42 inch 720p television screen just as quickly as you can with any console. And my little 19 inch monitor is capable of much higher resolutions than any HD TV, resolutions higher than even my video card can put out. Combine that with I'm sitting about eight inches away from my screen, it's plenty big as is. Gonna get even bigger when I get my 24 inch widescreen.
If you like split-screen gaming, then more power to you, but I hate it with a passion, so I play multiplayer online. That's another realm PC reigns supreme, you won't find me paying Microshaft x amount of dollars a month, on top of my broad band Internet connection cost, to play Internet games when I can do it for free on my computer.