LowEndTorque
Member
I've heard so many divergent opinions on this.
At one end of the spectrum there is the "lulz consoles" crowd, who often joke about phones/calculators having better hardware than conosles and who think that comparing current PC games to current console games is like comparing GT5 to Pole Position on the Atari 2600.
At the other side of the spectrum, I've seen folks who are more along the lines of "meh... sure games look great at 1080p, 60 fps with tons of AA, but the difference in the overall visual package isn't that huge. Comparing a game like say, Uncharted 3 to the Witcher 2 doesn't really yeild that huge of a difference in the overall visual package."
The recent port of the original Crysis over to the PS3/360, and the current work being done on bringing the Witcher 2 to 360 kind of gets you thinking a little....
It's totally unimaginable to think of a game experience like MGS 3 or San Andreas running on a PS1. It's completely unthinkbable to imagine, say, the Assassin's Creed engine running on a PS2, no matter how much you reduced the graphics. Each gen seems to have brought new gaming experiences that were essentially impossible on previous hardware.
But here we are nearly 7 years since the beginning of this console gen, and it seems that pretty much any PC game in existence can be ported over to the consoles, and still be essentially the same experience, aside from the inferior visuals.
This raises another question. Are generational leaps defined simply by improvements in graphical fidelity? Or is it less about graphics and more about creating new experiences that simply weren't possible on previous hardware?
I completely and fully understand that in terms of hardware, PC's are indeed several generations ahead of consoles. But question this thread is posing is more along the lines of software. Are the games themselves that are currently available on PC's what you would consider a full generational leap over the games available on consoles? (ignoring the theoretical power of kickass PC hardware)
So what do you think gaf? Is 1080p, 60fps and tons of AA enough to be considered a true generational leap? Or is a generational leap less about better graphics and more about providing new experiences that weren't possible on previous hardware?
Are the current games (games, not hardware) available on PC's what you would consider a full generational leap over what's available on consoles?
oh, and in b4 inevitable "yes. /thread." and "first post nails it" "didn'treadlol.gif" etc.
At one end of the spectrum there is the "lulz consoles" crowd, who often joke about phones/calculators having better hardware than conosles and who think that comparing current PC games to current console games is like comparing GT5 to Pole Position on the Atari 2600.
At the other side of the spectrum, I've seen folks who are more along the lines of "meh... sure games look great at 1080p, 60 fps with tons of AA, but the difference in the overall visual package isn't that huge. Comparing a game like say, Uncharted 3 to the Witcher 2 doesn't really yeild that huge of a difference in the overall visual package."
The recent port of the original Crysis over to the PS3/360, and the current work being done on bringing the Witcher 2 to 360 kind of gets you thinking a little....
It's totally unimaginable to think of a game experience like MGS 3 or San Andreas running on a PS1. It's completely unthinkbable to imagine, say, the Assassin's Creed engine running on a PS2, no matter how much you reduced the graphics. Each gen seems to have brought new gaming experiences that were essentially impossible on previous hardware.
But here we are nearly 7 years since the beginning of this console gen, and it seems that pretty much any PC game in existence can be ported over to the consoles, and still be essentially the same experience, aside from the inferior visuals.
This raises another question. Are generational leaps defined simply by improvements in graphical fidelity? Or is it less about graphics and more about creating new experiences that simply weren't possible on previous hardware?
I completely and fully understand that in terms of hardware, PC's are indeed several generations ahead of consoles. But question this thread is posing is more along the lines of software. Are the games themselves that are currently available on PC's what you would consider a full generational leap over the games available on consoles? (ignoring the theoretical power of kickass PC hardware)
So what do you think gaf? Is 1080p, 60fps and tons of AA enough to be considered a true generational leap? Or is a generational leap less about better graphics and more about providing new experiences that weren't possible on previous hardware?
Are the current games (games, not hardware) available on PC's what you would consider a full generational leap over what's available on consoles?
oh, and in b4 inevitable "yes. /thread." and "first post nails it" "didn'treadlol.gif" etc.
