Gameguru Mania

ggrobot · Elite Member Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 53575

A side by side comparison of the Crysis 2 demo on both Xbox 360 and PC. PC gameplay was captured using fraps on the highest settings available for the demo. The Xbox 360 gameplay was captured using the Hauppage HD PVR.

Read more...

Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news

tride · Elite Member Joined: 27 Feb 2010 Posts: 566

Ok, ok. The PC is more polished - bether texture rez., some post effects etc...
Everything else...no difference, and this makes me think that this is another proof that the stupid consoles are just holding the boost in game development!
Im betting my ass that if they push it to the limits on the PC the game will look even bether!
And dont be confused! It looks awesome now and is eating system resources because of the AA and the higher tex. rez. that is eating VGA ram...

Bellipotens · Contributor Joined: 09 Mar 2011 Posts: 2

A 360 or PS3 comparison to a PC --> FAIL

I enjoyed Crysis 2 demo, the full game will be amazing.

Will definitely support the creators once its released on the PC March 22, 2011.

I will agree with the consoles "holding the boost" as tride said, still the money from console sales help the game industry - I give my share for the PC's whenever a worthy game is released.

Tom · Elite Member Joined: 07 Jun 2004 Posts: 4289

And the biggest detail missed. Console $400. PC $1500. Obviously anyone can see the detail is way better on PC. More video memory, better support for DirectX but it will lose in sales because consoles are simply more affordable. As it stands, a current video card that will last you a few years will cost as much as a console. I hate these comparisons, always comes down to the same thing and overall it's just a bunch of nonsense.

Ozieo · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2004 Posts: 648

It's not just about image quality, neither PS3 or XBox360 are capable at handling a fast action FPS in the first place, people not comparing games like Modern Warfare 2 on both consoles and PC simply don't even know that consoles are way too slow for these kinds of games, they don't know that the same game differs day&night between console & PC, not only in graphic but in user-response. Image quality in the end is only a small drawback for the consoles, it's the fact that they are prev-gen things at this very same day that most don't even know.

If it would be possible to mix both PC and console versions playing the same game online, even the stupidest noob on PC would kick the "hardened" console gamers ass every single time, at the time it takes to make your soldier look from left to right on console, the PC gamer would have made 6 pirouettes, and danced the samba and the Bolsanova and then funnily ventilated the console bastard's cheek like a colander.

Consoles were never made for things like FPS's and other fast re-action games in the first place. Yeah sure they like great in games like Grand Turismo, you take a simple HD screenshot of some environment and move that in the background, and people will say "Wow! This thing is amazing" .... They simply don't know any better....

tride · Elite Member Joined: 27 Feb 2010 Posts: 566

Tom, your point there is incorrect!
400 for the console and 1000-2000 for a nice TV - the same as a PC. And yet, its the same because once you buy a nice PC you dont need to upgrade every year... The hardware doesnt age as fast because of the consoles! Wink

They keep thing to a level where you dont need to upgrade every year with the top noch hardware...
I am the living proof for this Very Happy

My machine is 3 years old and runs everything on max (well, it wont run Crysis 2 but who cares...)

Ozieo: yes, because of the old hardware that is in the consoles they cap the games at 30 fps, for example...

RayzorBlue · Contributing Member Joined: 19 May 2010 Posts: 77

You do talk some clart Tom, my setup cost about Â£550 (including monitor) and can run any modern game better than the console equivalent. By comparison my XBox cost Â£250 (including HD and wireless controller) and my TV cost Â£550. The games on XBox cost 30-40% more than there PC equivalent as well. If you need me to list hardware and prices to prove a point please ask. That said I still won't be running Crysis 2 on max that would cost me another Â£300 at least on a new GPU.

darknothing · Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject:

hey TOM if you cant afford pc gaming then dont bitch about it

me im ok with upgrading my rig every 2 years for 1500$ even though i don't need to fully upgrade every 2 years.
the only reason consoles do so well is because there easily afforded.

its simple if you cant pay for pc gaming then dont HATE on us.

me i own a ps3 psp a 2100$ gaming laptop, and a 2000$ rig.

dont hate on us for loving pc gaming, stop the trolling.

Sabot · Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject:

Each to their own.
Personaly it would cost me Â£1,200 JUST for the highest recommended setting CPU and graphic cards.
I'm in heaven playing Killzone 3, Enslaved, GT5, Motorstom PR,Avatar,Pain, PoP trilogy in 3D on my 46" 600Hz panny, That i watch 3D football/films in as well as pc/console gaming. because i can.
That's more important than bitchin about specs on a game and going on about fps or about worrying about hurting gamers ego's because your good or crap at online shit.
I'll be playing Crysis 2 and be more concerned about gameplay rather than justifying my quad core, double SLI rig ~ that i've not got Laughing

gx-x · Elite Member Joined: 02 Jul 2007 Posts: 2652