Why do people constantly brag that their PCs are more pwerful than WiiU/PS3/720?

#171AkaneJonesPosted 11/8/2012 10:06:38 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Actually, the difference is pretty damn massive. If you enjoy fuzzy, jagged <30fps then hey, that's fine. I liked N64, too. but, the difference is about the same as going from PSX/N64 to PS2/GC.


People can't tell. Jimmy Kimmel gave people an old Iphone and told them it was new. They made up crap about it. People saw the 3rd party footage of WiiU games and ragged on them claiming they looked worse. The footage was PS360 footage. People can't tell. Only technophiles care or can even tell, similar things happened with Mp3s and Autophiles.

Yes if you have bad eyes the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames maybe important. But that's only with PCs versus PC360 versions, and doesn't seem to apply to WiiU. So it doesn't significantly change the argument.
#172DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/8/2012 10:09:40 PM(edited)
AkaneJones posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
Actually, the difference is pretty damn massive. If you enjoy fuzzy, jagged <30fps then hey, that's fine. I liked N64, too. but, the difference is about the same as going from PSX/N64 to PS2/GC.


People can't tell. Jimmy Kimmel gave people an old Iphone and told them it was new. They made up crap about it. People saw the 3rd party footage of WiiU games and ragged on them claiming they looked worse. The footage was PS360 footage. People can't tell. Only technophiles care or can even tell, similar things happened with Mp3s and Autophiles.

Yes if you have bad eyes the difference between 30 frames and 60 frames maybe important. But that's only with PCs versus PC360 versions, and doesn't seem to apply to WiiU. So it doesn't significantly change the argument.


Nothing to do with being a technophile. You're just desperately trying to justify your inferior Peasant hardware.
Also, the technophile framerate mark is the difference between 120fps and 240fps in a game with very convincing motion blur.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
#173darkjedilinkPosted 11/8/2012 10:21:41 PM
ColorfulColors posted...
PC=Personal Computer

They make it as powerful as they can.

But in reality, i don't count the PC a console. Why?

PCs were made to make documents, surf the web, do research, the "gaming" part of it was just a neat feature. I know there are "Gaming" PCs out there, but really, a computer is just a computer.


And judging by the complaints of a lack of media capability in the Wii U, consoles are becoming something where gaming is just a neat feature, taking a back seat to watching movies, listening to music, surfing the web and using social media.

Just like PC's, only more expensive for what you get and less powerful.
---
Gaming is like a pair of boobs - Sony and Microsoft fight over whos boobs look more realistic, while Nintendo is about having fun with them - Walkiethrougie
#174AkaneJonesPosted 11/8/2012 10:33:59 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...

Nothing to do with being a technophile. You're just desperately trying to justify your inferior Peasant hardware.
Also, the technophile framerate mark is the difference between 120fps and 240fps in a game with very convincing motion blur.


People don't care. I'm defending nothing. You are making up excuses to argue with me. The human can't even perceive the difference between those two frame rates. That's scientific facts. I did know a guy who had issues with low frame rates the bellow 60 type, but that was around the end of N64 moving to PS2 era. Things have changes and F-Zero on SNES's frame fate makes you sick isn't something there.

It's like you people wanting 4K TV as some new standard. Well guess what TVs aren't getting bigger and or people aren't buying them bigger so "crisper" graphics mean squat. If sales of Blu-Ray versus DVD said they had problems moving them, as people didn't care, it says even worse about 1024p to 4K. Oh and don't use figures from, now on that, those just means shops are pushing Blu-Ray players over DVD ones, and then pricing them the same.
#175FlyinTonitePosted 11/8/2012 10:38:40 PM
Pc gamers have long been sitting on "next gen" console tech for years. Personally, I find it funny people spew specs as the reason wii u sucks, and nextbox will have unreal 4 working well (which is roflstupid, a gtx 680 equivalent in a 400 dollar console, bahahaha). As console gamers, y'all should just be looking forward to what cool innovations nintendo may have because spec wise, you get what you pay for, and you won't be getting great tech for 400 bucks. This includes nextbox and ps4 unless they are looking at a loss of a few hundred bones per console. It's about time too, ac 3 was the latest causality on a game gimped by weak specs, and don't even get me started on how much better looking halo 4 would be on a pc.
---
My karma was 777 on April 3rd, 2012
i7 3770s @ 3.1ghz, asus gtx 660, gskill ripjaws 8 gb, ASUS|P8B75-V R, ocz 700w psu, 1.5 tb seagate hdd
#176DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/8/2012 10:41:58 PM
AkaneJones posted...
People don't care. I'm defending nothing. You are making up excuses to argue with me. The human can't even perceive the difference between those two frame rates. That's scientific facts. I did know a guy who had issues with low frame rates the bellow 60 type, but that was around the end of N64 moving to PS2 era. Things have changes and F-Zero on SNES's frame fate makes you sick isn't something there.

It's like you people wanting 4K TV as some new standard. Well guess what TVs aren't getting bigger and or people aren't buying them bigger so "crisper" graphics mean squat. If sales of Blu-Ray versus DVD said they had problems moving them, as people didn't care, it says even worse about 1024p to 4K. Oh and don't use figures from, now on that, those just means shops are pushing Blu-Ray players over DVD ones, and then pricing them the same.


Actually, science puts it somewhere in the 500fps range. Anyone with a 120hz monitor can tell you that 60->120 is pretty obvious and a big difference.
You should stop making crap up to defend your Peasant console. It's just sad.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
#177knightimexPosted 11/8/2012 10:59:21 PM
shaunme posted...
knightimex posted...
My PC is really bad ass.

But I'm not going to sit here, and attack the wii u every single chance I get.
Using PC downgrades other console mentions.

Super Effective attack is super effective.


You dont own 1


whatever helps you sleep at night.
---
With PC, Next generation gaming is always today.
Not 5 to 8 years from now.
#178DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/8/2012 11:03:33 PM
JKatarn posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
shampoowarrior posted...
Well, if you took the time investment to read a little more carefully, you would probably notice posts like those usually come out after someone tries to bash X console and brag about how much more powerful Y console is.

The point they're making is PC > All, power-wise. If people want to brag about their favorite console, power is a poor weapon choice.


Dumb logic like this is why the TC made this topic. PC's are not > all because PC is not > for cost. Not only is not much worse for cost in terms of performance, what you get is a lot messier than consoles. You cannot put a disc in and play most games. You cannot share, sell or rent games. The local multi support of PCs is an absolute joke.

Much more annoying is hunting for the parts and then building it yourself just to save money and still have it be much less cost effect.

Another issue would be the huge size of a PC compared to consoles.

Oh lets not forget all the issues PCs come into with DRMs and compatability issues. I've had two games this generation that I can't even play because of DRM and one other game that barely plays.


To be fair, very few console games this generation support local split-screen multiplayer anymore, they are mostly limited to online-only multiplayer.

Also, you absolutely can built a decent gaming PC that will blow the consoles away for ~$650-750 (this of course does not include a monitor + peripherals), and as a bonus you can do many many other things on it besides gaming as well. True, there is a bit of a learning curve to building a PC but as long as you're reasonably careful assembly is simple and straightforward.

I personally have had very few compatibility problems, and I play a wide range of games from classics to modern titles...as long as you go to the vendor sites and install the latest drivers for your graphics card (which is a straightforward process) it's fairly simple to avoid compatibility problems.


I don't understand what this is...

First of all, split screen gaming is all but an industry standard. This year alone we got Black Ops 2, Halo 4, Borderlands, RE6 and all the new racing games. Please don't pull information out of your ass. If anything, there are just less shooters now.

Also, do you even understand what cost effective means? It does not mean spend however much you want. You can beat current consoles with a much smaller budget than that.

If you are implying that a $600computer is going to beat a $600 console, than you really have no idea what the hell your talking about. This probably wasn't even true for the PS3 and it was $200 too much for its power because of Bluray.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#179knightimexPosted 11/8/2012 11:03:57 PM
ITT: Console war\pc fighting.

KnightimeX loves this s***!
He lives for it.
---
With PC, Next generation gaming is always today.
Not 5 to 8 years from now.
#180AkaneJonesPosted 11/8/2012 11:11:18 PM(edited)
DarkZV2Beta posted...


Actually, science puts it somewhere in the 500fps range. Anyone with a 120hz monitor can tell you that 60->120 is pretty obvious and a big difference.
You should stop making crap up to defend your Peasant console. It's just sad.


Oh so all those 32 frames a second movies are crap, and shouldn't exist because obviously people can tell and refused to watch them so there was a big rush to improve all the frame rates ever. Oh wait it didn't happen, people are still fine with there 32 frame per second films. But what do I care it's clear you are PC Technophile from the way you are arguing. No one that wants to be taken serious would spout crap like "Peasant console".


Simply put a dumb stereotype blond on the left, a random soccer mom on the left, and stupid frat-bro at the back wouldn't notice the difference of some random game at 10 feet away on a standard size tv, or even care about it. Oh and we aren't talking side by side comparisons, we are just giving them the game and not telling them what it's running on. We are only swapping between different game, never the same game, although are allowed to go back to the game, and have it running on a different platform. And we aren't telling them to yell, "Hey the game doesn't look like it's running full PC specks" if they think it is. But they can say hey that looks better from some reason if they think it looks better than games at there home. They mostly won't even notice won't even notice what's up. Even when we lie and tell them the console version is the PC and the PC is the console.