Support NeoGAF

[Brofist]

This is amazing.

I knew someone who couldn't read between the lines would quote me like that.

People should know when and where their personal preferences are relevant to the topic.

If you are a big Uncharted fan yes you should and are justified in owning a PS3. In a topic comparing technical merits of games no one gives a shit though.

 

[LowEndTorque]

I knew someone who couldn't read between the lines would quote me like that.

People should know when and where their personal preferences are relevant to the topic.

If you are a big Uncharted fan yes you should and are justified in owning a PS3. In a topic comparing technical merits of games no one gives a shit though.

Uh huh.

So remind me again, what does the following post have to do with "technical merits" rather than personal preference?

B) A year or two into 'next gen', when they realize they should of spent their money on a PC.

 

[Atraveller]

LOL

This is the post he was replying to:



^ This has absolutely nothing to do with "graphical prowess" and everything to do with choosing a platform and how people decide to spend their money. Try again.

Sigh, why would people regret not building a pc two years in next gen? Because a PC might perform better(that's "graphical prowess" for you, mister), and he said it will not happen because people would just stick to their platform of choice and roll with it, and use it defend when mentioned, is that really hard to understand?

Edit: He also made it clear that there's nothing wrong in choosing a platform because of exclusives.

 

[Brofist]

Uh huh.

So remind me again, what does the following post have to do with "technical merits" rather than personal preference?

He obviously meant in a year or two when the limits of console are better known and PC versions start showing their muscle. Or that's how I read that. My point is even if/when such a day comes console guys like yourself would move on to a different arguing point. Price, convenience, until you have nothing left to argue except for your personal preferences.

 

[LowEndTorque]

For folks who like to talk about goal post moving, this is absolutely incredible. Disingenuousness at its finest.

I haven't been this entertained by a thread since the Eurogamer/PS4 RAM carnival of stupid. Keep it up fellas!

 

[Brofist]

For folks who like to talk about goal post moving, this is absolutely incredible. Disingenuousness at its finest.

I haven't been this entertained by a thread since the Eurogamer/PS4 RAM carnival of stupid. Keep it up fellas!

You should be entertained, you've been one of the star performers

 

[Atraveller]

For folks who like to talk about goal post moving, this is absolutely incredible. Disingenuousness at its finest.

I haven't been this entertained by a thread since the Eurogamer/PS4 RAM carnival of stupid. Keep it up fellas!

Would you kindly point out the faults in his posts, enlighten us the carnival of stupid, instead of saying "this is amazing" and "LOL",otherwise I can't really understand you.

 

[LowEndTorque]

Would you kindly point out the faults in his posts, enlighten us the carnival of stupid, instead of saying "this is amazing" and "LOL",otherwise I can't really understand you.

lol, I already did and did so very clearly. All the two of you have been doing since then, is back pedalling and sad attempts at trying to put a spin on what was said.

 

[RibbedHero]

I reckon my S4 has more Teraflops than the XO and PS4. And at least there I'm guaranteed 1080p gaming.

 

[Atraveller]

lol, I already did and did so very clearly. All the two of you have been doing since then, is back pedalling and sad attempts at trying to put a spin on what was said.

You did? Point it out.

 

[Atraveller]

Uh huh.

So remind me again, what does the following post have to do with "technical merits" rather than personal preference?

B) A year or two into 'next gen', when they realize they should of spent their money on a PC.

It has everything to do with the technical merits of PC.

 

[LowEndTorque]

It has everything to do with the technical merits of PC.

 

[Atraveller]

Why are you even on NeoGaf if you don't like to discuss? You dismiss people with "LOL" and image macro, when I told you to be more specific, you ignore me. We are here because we like to talk about games, are we not?

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

Getting back on topic I just re-watched the Division gameplay and anyone else notice that the IQ looks way too clean?

 

[Brofist]

And the carnival rolls on.

You need to take your own advice into consideration. Try posting something useful and you may be taken seriously.

 

[StevieP]

Getting back on topic I just re-watched the Division gameplay and anyone else notice that the IQ looks way too clean?

It looks "too clean" for a reason

 

[Jack_AG]

Getting back on topic I just re-watched the Division gameplay and anyone else notice that the IQ looks way too clean?

Ehhhh... TBH i did not find it very impressive visually. It looks like what I would expect from the technical merits of Xbone/PS4. I really don't see anything that is incapable to do with specs of either machine.

 

[StevieP]

Ehhhh... TBH i did not find it very impressive visually. It looks like what I would expect from the technical merits of Xbone/PS4. I really don't see anything that is incapable to do with specs of either machine.

It's not the scope of the project that looks too good to be true. It's the image quality that's unattainable to that level on either upcoming console. And the reason it's so high was because it was being played with a PS4 controller on a high end PC.

 

[nib95]

It's not the scope of the project that looks too good to be true. It's the image quality that's unattainable to that level on either upcoming console. And the reason it's so high was because it was being played with a PS4 controller on a high end PC.

Do you have a link to this? I was under the impression it was being played on a PS4 dev kit, just like Assassin's Creed BF, Watch Dogs and NFS Rivals.

 

[Atraveller]

It looks "too clean" for a reason

Hmm...which is?

 

[StevieP]

Do you have a link to this? I was under the impression it was being played on a PS4 dev kit, just like Assassin's Creed BF, Watch Dogs and NFS Rivals.

Again, Believing any message board post is totally optional. There are, however, others that have been privy when they've asked the reps:

http://www.t3.com/reviews/tom-clancys-the-division-review

Among the finest graphical showpieces at E3 - operated by a PS4 controller but, Ubisoft told us, running off a high-end PC - The Division utilises the firm's new Snowdrop in-house engine developed for next-gen machines.

A lot of times at reveal shows when developers say "dev kit" they actually mean "high end PC that we're staging our games on". I don't want to say "the sky is falling" or anything, guys... the game (and others) will look great on each respective platform. But when something looks too good (i.e. "too clean") to be true there is always a reason for it. You have set limits on the console hardware and these limits are documented in the form of their specs - which fall short of high end PCs which are able to push an image like the Division's with high levels of filtering and such. When you see very high levels of AA/AF in an image claimed to be running on said consoles, you should always adjust your expectations. In the same way we all do when the majority of developers release supersampled bullshots and people constantly have to go into threads and say "hang on, guys... hold on a minute here".

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

Ehhhh... TBH i did not find it very impressive visually. It looks like what I would expect from the technical merits of Xbone/PS4. I really don't see anything that is incapable to do with specs of either machine.

I don't doubt that games will look like that on the next gen consoles, But that IQ looks wayy too much.

 

[Gun Animal]

Getting back on topic I just re-watched the Division gameplay and anyone else notice that the IQ looks way too clean?

You mean like every single AAA game trailer Ubisoft has released in the last 4~5 years?

I'm sure the Division will look good compared to what we're used to, but I'm also sure that any Ubisoft game will never look as good as it's press footage. I don't even have a problem with it, consumer expectations for IQ are often unreasonable.

 

[Atraveller]

You mean like every single AAA game trailer Ubisoft has released in the last 4~5 years?

I'm sure the Division will look good compared to what we're used to, but I'm also sure that any Ubisoft game will never look as good as it's press footage. I don't even have a problem with it, consumer expectations for IQ are often unreasonable.

Assassin's Creed trailers looked horrible(not the cinematic ones).

 

[alexandros]

This is all great. PCs could be 50x time more powerful, reaching Zetaflop territory (no idea what's after tera, just going with Zeta for now), but the problem is that there's no software created to take advantage of it.

I disagree, every piece of software out there can take advantage of the power you have available. All PC games are scalable, which means that you can increase visual fidelity as long as your hardware is up to the task. It doesn't matter if you can't enable advanced graphical effects in all games, just the increased framerate and visual clarity are more than enough to provide a significantly better experience.

The problem with this post is that it confines PC into a misleading collective umbrella that doesn't really represent the reality of the situation. You're obviously talking about the high end, enthusiast market. Assuredly the most niche market in all of gaming. Why do you refer to it like it isn't a fractional market?

Because the universal truth of PC gaming is that the high-end of today is the mid-range of tomorrow. GTX 680-like levels of power will be available in $200-250 prices quite soon.

I concluded that even when spending 700€ 3 years after current gen started he wasnt able to build a pc that absolutely murders consoles in visuals.

I would argue that more than double the resolution at double the framerate and at higher quality settings would constitute, if not murder, at least aggravated assault In any case the argument you're trying to make is meaningless because you're actually supporting my argument. I'll explain.

Maybe you didn't read my earlier posts but I (and several other people) have said that at the beginning of the previous generation the X360's and the PS3's advanced hardware meant that you did need to spend a lot of money in order to buy a PC that could match them. It took the PC industry at least a year after the release of the Xbox 360 to provide similar or better performing technology at affordable midrange prices with cards like the $200 X1950 Pro and the Core 2 line of processors. I know this first hand as I was looking to buy a new PC at the time. Gfx cards like the 6800 Ultra could already offer better-than-console performance but they were priced way, way above my pay grade.

Fast forward to today and the situation is radically different. The new consoles don't push the envelope in terms of raw horsepower as their predecessors did. This has led to a situation where distinctly mid-range graphics cards like the GTX 760 and the Radeon 7950 already provide more horsepower than next-gen consoles before the consoles are even out! By the time they are released it's quite possible that prices will drop even further and the levels of power will go up, especially due to AMD's upcoming 9000 series launch.

This situation is unprecedented in the history of console and PC gaming. We'll see what kind of an impact it has on the market.

 

[Gun Animal]

Assassin's Creed trailers looked horrible(not the cinematic ones).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZrklEy9ohQ I don't know if you'd call this horrible, but it's worse than what we actually got on consoles. The Revelations trailers were pretty much the same way, as I remember.

 

[SirButterstick]

It has everything to do with the technical merits of PC.

I am absolutely talking about technical merits. The PC space will keep evolving in terms of capabilities and power, while consoles will be stuck with a date of 11/13. You can talk about 'coding to da metal' and GDDR5 and all that, but you're stuck with an already inferior product spec wise.

Then again, I thought gaming on the PC was always vastly better than consoles, even in the much vaunted 360 release window period. Hell, you could get sims like M1 Tank Platoon on a 486 in the mid-90s, and there still to this day hasn't been a game like that on the consoles. PC flatly offer more variety and a better experience.

 

[Atraveller]

I am absolutely talking about technical merits. The PC space will keep evolving in terms of capabilities and power, while consoles will be stuck with a date of 11/13. You can talk about 'coding to da metal' and GDDR5 and all that, but you're stuck with an already inferior product spec wise.

Then again, I thought gaming on the PC was always vastly better than consoles, even in the much vaunted 360 release window period. Hell, you could get sims like M1 Tank Platoon on a 486 in the mid-90s, and there still to this day hasn't been a game like that on the consoles. PC flatly offer more variety and a better experience.

I have no idea why the previous guy kept arguing about it.

 

[alexandros]

That's not true at all. PC games aren't synthetic benchmarks. Especially on CPU side the utilization of PC hardware is just awful.

I don't care. Why should I? If the market can provide me with CPUs that do the job I want them to (play games well) at great prices then honestly, I really don't care if the hardware is being utilized to its fullest potential. It is of no relevance to me as a gamer. It would be if I was forced to pay a lot of money in order to at least match the PS4's CPU. Since I'm not, the fact that some part of the CPU's power may be wasted really is of no consequence.

It's easy to have great image quality in PC games like Mass Effect or Call of Duty. But those aren't anywhere near next gen games.

These past few days I've been playing Sleeping Dogs, a truly fantastic-looking game. I use a combination of high and medium settings at a resolution of 1680-x1050 (my monitor's native res) and I get somewhere between 45 and 60 fps per second. I'm extremely satisfied with the image quality and performance.

Beating a PS4 won't be as easy as beating a PS3.

Well yeah, nowadays even a $40 graphics card will beat a PS3. A better question: Will it be easier for a mid-range PC of 2013 to beat the PS4 than a mid-range PC of 2006 to beat the Xbox 360?

All I'm saying is that you're highly overestimating the level of optimization and scalability in PC games. Only a very few PC games don't rely on the brute-force method. Most of the PC power (esp CPU) will remain unused.

Again, I agree. I'm not overestimating the optimization in PC games, I object to the overestimation of optimizations in console games. Not because it's not technically possible but because with current market conditions noone will spend precious time and resources to squeeze out every last bit of performance. I hope that's made it clearer.

 

[CerebralTiger]

I object to the overestimation of optimizations in console games. Not because it's not technically possible but because with current market conditions noone will spend precious time and resources to squeeze out every last bit of performance. I hope that's made it clearer.

Incremental optimizations may be possible over the course of several games running on the same graphics engine.

 

[Dictator93]

I just thought I would say that the idea that "most" PC releases only use 2 cores is a relic from like 2007 or so. Tons of widely used engines since then have adopted more than 2 core approaches. Even indie games (Natural Selection 2 for example).

 

[Arulan]

That's the worst part of PC gaming in my eyes: You pay for super expensive hardware, but you already know before you even start the system that most of the games will never utilize that power. Starcraft for example has an awful performance even on expensive PCs. That's just frustrating for me. I hate it.

Software is sometimes unoptimized, some games and/or engines may have problems but this is far from the norm. On the other hand, on PC this can often be patched or improved upon, drivers will be released with increased gains in performance, the option as a consumer to improve your experience with better hardware, etc. All the while, on consoles you're forever stuck with what is released, you can't tweak settings to improve your experience, no improvement in hardware can be purchased, if the game runs poorly you have no options.

An even better question would be: Why do some people here think it's an advantage for PCs if a 50% more expensive rig can bring the same performance as a next gen console? That's devoid of logic, if you ask me.

Are we really going back to pricing arguments? I hope the console failure rate this generation isn't as high as it was this generation, that would be almost like paying twice as much for nothing... Oh, and subscription fees.

If your choice as a consumer is to simply stop your PC improvements when it reaches "next-gen console equivalency" then by all means, you can set your own standards.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I really recommend you to buy a 1920x1080 monitor. It'll kill lots of your performance.

I'm sure he's really grateful for that fantastic bit of advice.

 

[Nozem]

If the consoles are relatively low performance compared to today's PCs, won't that have a negative effect on the PC hardware developments? There won't be any need to catch up to the consoles, multiplatform games will be perfectly playable on PC from day 1.

 

[Dictator93]

I claim that many of you think it's far from the norm only because the discrepancy between a 2005 console and a 2013 gaming PC is tremendous.

I definitely don't have the feeling that I got what I paid for when playing most PC games.



Hey, it's the next gen resolution. He's comparing PCs to consoles all the time. Why not keep it fair and simple?

May sound strange... but what gfx card do you have again? and which framerate or settings are you looking at in games?.. it is not all a fault of "poor engine" optimization. You may have way too high expectations for example.

Driving a120hz monitor at 1080p either requires settings sacrafice or quite the rig for upper end PC games.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Hey, it's the next gen resolution. He's comparing PCs to consoles all the time. Why not keep it fair and simple?

Ha, I don't really care about the squabble, I just thought it was funny that you are recommending he do something that you claim would damage his performance.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

Sorry yes, ps+ is competitive. The sales are almost as good as steam and you get free games.

The sales locked behind a paywall are almost as good as Steam sales? Wow, where do I sign up?! And then remain signed up for eternity so I don't lose my "free" games.

More importantly, the competitiveness of each online platform is based on the type of games you like to play. Yes i have a steam account but most of the games i prefer are on playstation/xbox. Example, i like sports games and i get it on ps4. There are advantages and disadvantages to each platform but determining the best online platform is subjective. To say that steam is better because the sales is fan-boy rambling because if you don't like whats on sale, you will not buy it. Look at the wii U for further reference.

Probably not the smartest thing to say after you deemed Xbox Live as "not competitive".

 

[Arulan]

I claim that many of you think it's far from the norm only because the discrepancy between a 2005 console and a 2013 gaming PC is tremendous.

I definitely don't have the feeling that I got what I paid for when playing most PC games (performance wise).

Considering most current console games run at sub-30 fps, the jump to 60 or even 120 is nothing short of significant, not to mention increased fidelity in graphics, effects, physics, resolution, etc. that can be achieved as well.

One of the main causes of poor optimization is the CPU. To an extent, we've relied on the scaling from clock speed this generation. I however don't believe this problem is as widespread, there are a few select games, and many of which the problems were subsequently addressed in patches. This issue however is largely going to fix itself. Most next-generation engines have been built to take full advantage of multiple cores, and as it so happens due to the "comparably weak" cores the next-gen consoles use they are in many ways forced into this path. Essentially, all of these optimizations on the console side and the switch to a multi-threaded focus will highly benefit PC gamers who in many cases already have the powerful i5/i7 CPUs to take full advantage of. I'm currently using a i7 920 OC'd at 3.8Ghz, I don't see any need to upgrade this fairly old CPU in the foreseeable future.

Lastly as others have already stated, this coming generation is the exception. I cannot stress how important this is, if what many consider "mid-ranged PCs" can already match or surpass next-gen consoles the differences in performance are only going to escape at much higher rates than ever before.

 

[Durante]

An even better question would be: Why do some people here think it's an advantage for PCs if a 50% more expensive rig can bring the same performance as a next gen console? That's devoid of logic, if you ask me.

Because that was not the case with previous consoles at release and PC gaming still did pretty damn well?
So now that it's cheaper than ever before to achieve competitive performance that is clearly a positive development for PC gaming.

And honestly, it's pretty obvious why this happened -- because consoles are a worse deal than before:

• Manufacturers are no longer eating huge initial losses, giving you a better initial hardware bang for your buck
• You now have to pay a monthly fee to play online games on both console platforms

Both of these points alter the value proposition significantly in favor of PC.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Next gen is going to be awesome at two moments in the near future:

A) One month after release, when the warriors realize that they're getting a baby step forward instead of a huge leap, and

B) A year or two into 'next gen', when they realize they should of spent their money on a PC.

It's going to be delicious, a true schadenfreude moment.

What a horrible post. Not only do you have a very narrow view on things, but you also sound extremely bitter.

1. Does this look like a "baby step" to you?

Battlefield 3 on PS3
1280x704
low details
24 players

vs.

Battlefield 4 on PS4
1920x1080
high/ultra details
64 players

2. Why do you think people will only look on graphics when they make their purchase decisions?

Graphics:

The new consoles will define how graphics look for the next couple of years. All coming games will use their feature set - and not much more. This means that PC games most likely do not offer much more advantages besides higher resolution/better filtering and higher framerates. And to be honest, I am perfectly fine with ~1920x1080. I don't really care about supersampling etc. The visual differences in the OP are most likely the differences between old / new builds. I assume that PC gamers will receive a build which is very similar to the console version, and there won't be massive differences. Maybe you will be able to build a PC with comparable performance for 399 in a year or so, but those consoles will get cheaper, too. PCs can, without a doubt, be more powerful than consoles. But I am not sure if things like super high resolutions matter to most people.

Comfort:

Most important point for me. I can put a game into my console and play it almost immediately. If I have to leave suddenly I press the power button and when I come back I can immediately continue from the same spot. I don't have to care about drivers and settings. My saves are automatically uploaded to a cloud backup server, and all my games and the whole system will be automatically patched. I can use voice chat without needing to install additional programs. There are basically no cheaters, and there are always thousands of gamers to play with or against, at any time. I just have to connect the HDMI cable to my AV receiver to experience beautiful 7.1 digital surround sound in HD. Every game perfectly supports the gamepad and it's rumble function, which increases immersion. I know that every game will make almost 100% use of the hardware I paid for. And console makers (especially Sony) are trying to improve their platform by adding new features or developing great exclusive games like "The Last of Us" and many more. This is the beauty of console gaming: Games just run, and I can just focus on playing them, even 5 years later.

 

[StevieP]

Battlefield 4 on ps4 won't use the equivalent to "ultra" settings on PC. And while save states are nice, cloud saving/auto patching/etc are not really advantages as all platforms do this. As has been already discussed, consoles haven't been in the realm of "buy the disc and play instantly" for awhile now. The same patching or long installations etc etc happens whether you're on pcs or consoles. You could argue that it's not as bad on handhelds still, though.

The 7.1 hdmi thing is the same. I've also found much much more cheating on console when playing cod and battlefield games there, than on the ranked servers I play on PC.

 

[Nethaniah]

-snip-

Weirdly you can apply most of the advantages you mentioned in this post to PC.

But I am not sure if things like super high resolutions matter to most people.

I don't really care about supersampling etc.

I don't care about any console exclusive, see i can do this too.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

What a horrible post. Not only do you have a very narrow view on things, but you also sound extremely bitter.

1. Does this look like a "baby step" to you?

Battlefield 3 on PS3
1280x704
low details
24 players

vs.

Battlefield 4 on PS4
1920x1080
high/ultra details
64 players

Ever since BF3 was announced, a lot of console gamers have been saying that such a jump in graphics/IQ (the difference between console BF3 and PC BF3) was negligible, and 24 players is "ideal" for Battlefield gameplay.

So according to them, this is not even a baby step; it's actually a step back!

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Battlefield 4 on ps4 won't use the equivalent to "ultra" settings on PC. And while save states are nice, cloud saving/auto patching/etc are not really advantages as all platforms do this. As has been already discussed, consoles haven't been in the realm of "buy the disc and play instantly" for awhile now. The same patching or long installations etc etc happens whether you're on pcs or consoles. You could argue that it's not as bad on handhelds still, though.

The 7.1 hdmi thing is the same. I've also found much much more cheating on console when playing cod and battlefield games there, than on the ranked servers I play on PC.

I very much doubt that the PC version of BF4 will have that much more details than the PS4 version, especially when they are now developing the game for 5 platforms. And no, long installations and patching processes are a thing of the past. Patches will be installed at night when I am sleeping while the console is in a low power mode, and games will be installed to the hdd while I am playing. You can't have this on a PC. And as far as I am aware, surround sound is a little bit more complicated on PCs. I also can't really remember if I ever have met a cheater while playing on my PS3. But I have very clear memories of those kids with their aimbots in Modern Warfare.

Weirdly you can apply most of the advantages you mentioned in this post to PC.

No you can't.

Ever since BF3 was announced, a lot of console gamers have been saying that such a jump in graphics/IQ (the difference between console BF3 and PC BF3) was negligible, and 24 players is "ideal" for Battlefield gameplay.

So according to them, this is not even a baby step; it's actually a step back!

Oh you are a funny guy. Who said this when? And where is the connection to what I have said?

 

[Nethaniah]

No you can't.

Yes, you can.

I also can't really remember if I ever have met a cheater while playing on my PS3.

I've encounted plenty that's personal experience talking. Didn't Activision threaten Sony with cutting them off because of their online security in regards to cheaters?

And as far as I am aware, surround sound is a little bit more complicated on PCs.

What is this, i don't even....

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Well then please "enlighten" me.

I've encounted plenty that's personal experience talking. Didn't Activision threaten Sony with cutting them off because of their online security in regards to cheaters?

Maybe you are just a bad player? Cheating is a much bigger problem on PCs than on consoles. That's a fact.

What is this, i don't even....

So you can simply put your HDMI cable in your AV receiver and you have 7.1 surround sound in almost every game? And what if your surround solution has no HDMI input?

 

[Arulan]

Ever since BF3 was announced, a lot of console gamers have been saying that such a jump in graphics/IQ (the difference between console BF3 and PC BF3) was negligible, and 24 players is "ideal" for Battlefield gameplay.

So according to them, this is not even a baby step; it's actually a step back!

It's simply double standards, it happens all the time. If a game on the PS3 for example has advantages in terms of graphics over the Xbox 360 version it's considered major and clearly indicative of the superior version. On the other hand, when the differences are truly vast, as is the case with PC versions in many cases it's condemned as an insignificant difference.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

And you ignoring the price difference between a $199 console and a gamer PC is not a "double standard"?

 

[StevieP]

It will have more details for those who have a video card that has more grunt than a Pitcairn, really. Video memory will have a bit of an impact in their choice, but applying things like ultra to your post processing, cranking AA/af, etc etc requires hardware juice as well. Especially if you want to maintain 1080p/60.

Hdmi works the same on PC as it does on console. You just have to right click on the sound icon, click "7.1" and surround just works. Same as going into the xmb and selecting your setup.

Many PC games regularly are playable while they install. Every game still does not do this, however - it is not a standard across the board.

Cheaters... Well I can only speak from experience. I have had far less aimbots on PC than on ps3 or Wii. Both consoles were an issue with cheaters. I haven't run into much of anything on ranked bf3 servers or any recent cod games through steam.

Edit: no it's not really a "fact" anymore. Not that it doesn't happen anymore (of course it does), but the bigger games like the examples you've mentioned have much better systems in place now than they even had a few years back.

 

[Dictator93]

It's simply double standards, it happens all the time. If a game on the PS3 for example has advantages in terms of graphics over the Xbox 360 version it's considered major and clearly indicative of the superior version. On the other hand, when the differences are truly vast, as is the case with PC versions in many cases it's condemned as an insignificant difference.

because 2x the resolution and 2x the framerate and a variety of conrol schemes is obviously insignifcant...

And you ignoring the price difference between a $199 console and a gamer PC is not a "double standard"?

What about the price of a PC which can play console ports at equal to or higher than console settings?
No joke... the thing would be similar in price whilst offering more versatility. I feel like this thread is a series of moving and repeating goal posts.

1. Graphics discussion
2. Price discussion
3. exclusives, comfort, ease of use discussion

rinse and repeat