Am I the only one who doesn't see the graphics improvement on PC?

GKDAIR

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 4, 2011
230
4
Everyone and their mother always tells gamers to switch over to PC and stuff for the better graphics and such, am I the only one that really doesn't notice much of a difference.

Does it look better? Yes. Am I willing to pay 1,000 dollars for that graphical improvement, no.

Battlefield 3 for example. I don't have the HD pack installed on my xbox and while it doesn't look amazing its still pretty damn good looking. I saw some PC gameplay and i barely could tell a difference, if any, and that game was running in High Settings.

I have perfect 20/20 vision.
 

thundersteele

macrumors 68030
Oct 19, 2011
2,984
7
Switzerland
Does it look better? Yes. Am I willing to pay 1,000 dollars for that graphical improvement, no.

Battlefield 3 for example. I don't have the HD pack installed on my xbox and while it doesn't look amazing its still pretty damn good looking. I saw some PC gameplay and i barely could tell a difference, if any, and that game was running in High Settings.

I have perfect 20/20 vision.
So, you are able to see a difference. Then what is this thread about?

I can play games on 1920x1200 resolution with ultra settings (or at least I could do it if I had a gaming rig) - how does your console + TV handle this?

And how do you play WoW and Starcraft II on that console?

If you don't want to pay $1000 for a small graphics improvement, then don't. But don't forget that PCs also serve other purposes than just gaming.
 

doh123

macrumors 65816
Dec 28, 2009
1,304
1
I think the main difference in first person view, is you usually not only have better graphics, you have a better field of view...

For me, I also hate controllers, and prefer playing games with keyboard and trackballs...
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,576
2,887
I can either play GTAIV...
on my Xbox - at a sub HD resolution, with medium settings for 25-30fps
on my iMac - at 1440p, with high settings for 40-60fps, with mod support and input options

I can either play Skyrim...
on my Xbox - at 720p, medium settings for 30fps
on my iMac - at 1440p, with ultra settings for 50-60fps, with mod support and input options

Give me the PC version any day. I'd also either doubt your visual acuity or your exposure to modern games. I've got awful eyes but I can see a world of difference in console versus PC graphics.
And bear in mind you buy a console to play games. You buy a computer to do everything and play games.
 

adnbek

macrumors 68000
Oct 22, 2011
1,511
470
Montreal, Quebec
Forget the higher resolution and better textures. From a framerate point of view alone, the difference to me is extremely apparent.
 

Ov3rlord Falc0r

macrumors regular
Apr 29, 2009
164
0
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Why does everybody think it cost a ton of money to build a gaming pc? I built a pc for Christmas for my brother for a Grand total of $550. Just take your time and find deals. It plays battlefield 3 on ultra settings. 1900x1080. 70+ FPS.

AMD A6-3650
ATI 6870
4gb RAM
Gigabyte Mobo
 

VI™

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2010
636
1
Shepherdsturd, WV
Well, being able to play games at 2560x1600 resolution on 30" monitor at high settings beats out crap textures on a TV any day.

Not to mention frame rate is a big improvement with a powerful system.

 

TurboMoses

macrumors member
Jan 23, 2012
42
0
Another advantage of PC gaming is the sheer backlog of games you have. I guess consoles carry a fair amount with Xbox Arcade and Wii's Virtual Console, but with a little bit of savvy you can get ANY game you want running on it, aside from current generation console exclusives, but give it a few years for emultaors to get up to par and I'm sure you'll be able to find em.

I find a USB controller excellent for any old console titles I play on my PC.
 

MarsUltor

macrumors member
Feb 2, 2007
45
0
Well, being able to play games at 2560x1600 resolution on 30" monitor at high settings beats out crap textures on a TV any day.

Not to mention frame rate is a big improvement with a powerful system.

Image
It seriously looks like you took the PS3 picture off of a CRT TV with a digital camera... my PS3 on a 1080P TV looks a lot better than yours, you might want to check your connections and settings
 

Shivetya

macrumors 68000
Jan 16, 2008
1,545
223
People tend to forget screen shots are meaningless when comparing which system you play your FPS on. Why? Because your never stationary in game nor are the scenes.

So while the XBOX/PSx has a lower resolution is it really detracting from game play? Is detail of items "miles" off really of importance when it has no effect on game play nor do you truly look at them while playing
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,576
2,887
People tend to forget screen shots are meaningless when comparing which system you play your FPS on. Why? Because your never stationary in game nor are the scenes.

So while the XBOX/PSx has a lower resolution is it really detracting from game play? Is detail of items "miles" off really of importance when it has no effect on game play nor do you truly look at them while playing
Yup, its noticeable. Resolution aside most console games run at 30fps, whilst on a PC you're aiming for 60fps. It's a world of difference.

I hope the next gen consoles run at 1080p 60fps as standard. Modern budget PCs can, after all.
 

trip1ex

macrumors 68000
Jan 10, 2008
1,980
344
If you sit back far enough from your HDTV then the fuzziness of the 360 graphics goes away.

The clarity between the two is the big difference. Pc graphics are much more clear. I also notice the gameplay is faster because of keyboard and mouse and frame rate.

At the same time I am impressed of just how good the 360 version is considering the hardware is 6+ years old.

It goes to show you how inefficient pcgames are at taking advantage of today's pc gaming hardware.

Also you get used to whatever you are looking at and adapt to it. I switched between playing BF:BC2 though on the pc and 360 and it was always immediately noticeable how much fuzzier the 360 version was. This switching between the platforms back and forth made the fuzziness always stand out quite a bit on the 360.

At the same time I thought the 360 version was smoother actually. And I believe it was because my plasma HDTV was much of higher quality than my pc monitor. Something about the way the picture is processed on my HDTV compared to monitor. The color was better on my plasma as well.
 
Last edited:

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,080
287
Indianapolis
Battlefield 3 is an improvement over the barely old Bad Company 2. Then again most of that is gloss and textures. I would say that Battlefield 3 on Low is Bad Company 2 on High settings. Just play with AA/AF and HBAO on Low settings in Battlefield 3 if you have problems running it. It is still mighty pretty otherwise, just jaggy with muddy shadows.
 

edddeduck

macrumors 68020
Mar 26, 2004
2,059
13
At the same time I am impressed of just how good the 360 version is considering the hardware is 6+ years old.

It goes to show you how inefficient pcgames are at taking advantage of today's pc gaming hardware.
The difference is not so much the games but the hardware/software on the devices, the console although old is designed purely for games in every way and also allows full hardware access to just about everything. PC/Mac is not designed for gaming primarily and does not allow hardware access to nearly anything.

Instead you have to access hardware through software which will always be less optimal if you want pure performance. It is however a lot safer which is the reason for a multiple application and complex operating system is is a wiser choice.