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

#181InfernislePosted 11/8/2012 11:44:14 PM
knightimex posted...
ITT: Console war\pc fighting.

KnightimeX loves this s***!
He lives for it.


It's complete with people refusing to accept the human ability to perceive framerates higher than 30 and everything.
#182AkaneJonesPosted 11/9/2012 12:08:06 AM
Infernisle posted...
knightimex posted...
ITT: Console war\pc fighting.

KnightimeX loves this s***!
He lives for it.


It's complete with people refusing to accept the human ability to perceive framerates higher than 30 and everything.


Where'd that happen, because I sure as hell didn't say that. I said people can tell the difference between 120 and 240*. I then stress in isn't and issue for people out side of lower then 60fps on people with bad eyes. The only mention of anything close to 30 is the traditional film camera speed of 32fps. Well they bumped from 24 but that was understandable, since the "home movie" flicker was noticeable at that speed. The point was stressing that they didn't bump it to even 60 frames in all those years up to digital conversion, so it clearly didn't matter.

* - (save things like while you are sky diving or in a high velocity race car where frame rate observations have been known to go up which shouldn't apply to people playing a game at standard 1g anyway, which I didn't bring up for obvious reason that it is irrelevant)
#183DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/9/2012 12:19:44 AM
AkaneJones posted...
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.


24 fps.
Lord of the Rings is 48, IIRC.

Watching and playing are different. Motion blur in movies works a lot better than in games. That said? Actually, I don't enjoy watching live action films because the framerate is jarring.
Seriously, you're just grasping at anything here. It's okay to be a Peasant. You don't have to defend your Peasant lifestyle and all it's shortcomings.
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
#184Rune CasterPosted 11/9/2012 12:24:23 AM
NoNeedF0RaName posted...
Every time there is a topic that discusses the power of the upcoming generation of home consoles, there is always a few people who come in and brag that their PC is more powerful than all of them. Look, I don't care if your PC is powerful enough to run an entire country, you will never be able to play Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Kirby, God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Little Big Planet, etc on said PC. So if you care about these franchises at all, you will still have to invest in home consoles. If you dont care about them, then why are you on this board? Obviously I didn't include Microsoft exclusives because those always end up on PC.


But you can play console games on PC it is called Emulation it just will be a while before said Emulation games will be available for current/next generation systems...

They even do that for older consoles take Sonic's Ultimate Genesis collection. From Dreamcast to Playstation 2 and 3, Xbox 360 and Wii Emulation games are available either as hard copies and/or downloadble games.
---
You have to be careful with those bulls. For instance...
*is picked up by a bull and placed in the cow launcher* o_0 THWIP-P-P-P AHHHHHHHHHH! - TimeSpaceMage
#185brainlackPosted 11/9/2012 5:02:13 AM
Nice_Kirbyfan9 posted...
From: DarkZV2Beta | #043
I enjoyed SCII, and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R games are real gems.
Not that you would know.

Oh yeah I wouldn't know. You sure named some obscure games there.

If thats the best PC gaming has to offer no wonder everybody pirates the games and developers avoid it like the plague. The PC is the PSP to the home consoles DS.


butthurt does'nt have a gaming pc hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Do you expect nintendo or any game company create games using console the first console that could create its own game is ps2 the yabasic hahaha jokes on you and nintendo doesn't have a console that can create its own game

ex uncharted 2 was created using linux in the ps3 so it is a ps3 made game for ps3

ex mario is created by using pc for nintendo consoles

and brawl was a multiplatform then nintendo steal the patent and changed the name and characters
---
because you like to read a sig in a sig so
I wrote a sig(inside a sig)for you to read - Brainlack
#186DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/9/2012 1:11:43 PM(edited)
FlyinTonite posted...
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.


I just have to facepalm at all the ignorant PC gamers in this topic. First of all, consoles have taken losses.

Second of all, why would a console need to take several hundred in losses to fit a 680 into a console by 2013 or 2014? Are you dumb enough to think they would pay full retail prices? Not to mention, they would be mass producing as well, lower the prices even further.

Thirdly, set hardware like in consoles do not even need a 680 to reach the equivalent performance and runs at much higher efficiencies, especially when we are talking about multicore CPUs.

Lastly, your just being an idiot. You have a silly 660, which isn't even close to the max potential of PCs so wtf are you even bragging about? If we are going to pretend that costs don't factor into anything then why don't you have a quad 680 setup with 3x 80 inch 4kTVs off of nvidia surround? Build me a PC that runs like the Wii U level of performance off of $200 before you open your mouth. Then keep in mind that Nintendo is often the worst in terms of value for hardware (look at the difference between 360 arcade and Wii for only $50 difference).

Scrubs really like to brag about nothing.
---
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
#187shaunmePosted 11/9/2012 1:13:22 PM
Thirdly, set hardware like in consoles do not even need a 680 to reach the equivalent performance and runs at much higher efficiencies, especially when we are talking about multicore CPUs.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa all credibility lost .
---
i72600k @4.6 // ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution // 8gb corsair vengence // 3x MSI GTX 680 LIGHTNINGS2gb sli // 850watt ocz gamexstream // 1tb samsung spinpoint //
#188JKatarnPosted 11/9/2012 2:14:43 PM
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


Lol, you're the one who compared the difference between consoles and pc to that of psx/n64 vs ps2 which is just laughably inaccurate and deluded. I seriously doubt very many people can discern meaningful differences between framerates over 100 fps - you're really reaching here.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 460 Superclocked
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#189DarkZV2BetaPosted 11/9/2012 2:21:07 PM
JKatarn posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
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.


Lol, you're the one who compared the difference between consoles and pc to that of psx/n64 vs ps2 which is just laughably inaccurate and deluded. I seriously doubt very many people can discern meaningful differences between framerates over 100 fps - you're really reaching here.


You've clearly never used anything besides a 60hz monitor.
But, hey, if you like your <30fps <720p stuttery blurry mess...
---
AMD CACHING = NOT YET FINISHED
#190lionheart5656Posted 11/9/2012 2:41:20 PM
From: Terotrous | #054
DarkZV2Beta posted...
With how cheap modern consoles are made? And how overpriced they are?

Modern PCs are just as bad in terms of reliability as the first editions of any console, and they're also susceptible to things like compatibility issues, viruses, bloatware, etc. Electronics in general are much less reliable than they used to be. Nintendo is the only company who still guarantees hardware reliability.


I don't even use an active anti-virus because I'm smart enough to know what to click and what looks potentially dangerous. I haven't had a virus in 5 years.

Also, PC are much more reliable than consoles if you aren't a monkey trying to put it together. Consoles constantly cut corners and stretch their old hardware to the limit hoping to get more power than the next guy. This leads to more hardware failures and heating issues (as demonstrated by PS3 YLOD and blu ray and the absolutely atrocious hardware failure rate of the 360) you won't ever find on a well built PC.

Consoles are a tool for the creators of said hardware to exercise control and make more money off their lazy or stupid consumer base. PCs have always been better in every way except uniformity and very few PC games have an issue making up for that.

Fun Fact: Did you now Microsoft tried to make PC gamers pay for Windows Live? The results? PC gamers laughed at them so hard they were forced to provide it for free. To this day most people won't touch that service with a ten foot pole. Xbox 360 console peasants still happily pay for internet they already have because they have no other choice if they want to play online.

The difference between a master race and peasants hence the meme.

Each console has its glaring weakness. PC has none unless you are dumb or lazy.
---
Men must be taught as if you taught them not, And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Shooting blanks, every time, all the time.