This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Are pc graphics really that amazing?

#51VoxwikPosted 8/17/2014 10:01:48 PM(edited)
I really couldn't care less about twitchy competitive FPS matches or (very boring to me) race simulators. I understand for some genres it's more important, but I simply have not played most of those games (and those I have not in a situation that requires FPS that high). So that means for me personally, the statement is plainly true.

You can laugh all you want, but 25 FPS is playable and enjoyable to me. I certainly like when it's higher, but consistency is far more important. Even less than that is still playable.

Star Fox (the original) is like 10-15 FPS it would seem, looking it up. Did that stop it from being a popular game at the time, or from the graphics being considered great? And I know to younger gamers that sounds ridiculous, but I distinctly remember my cousin flipping out over the graphics watching me play the first Star Fox. The point is that it's still quite playable and not the end of the world to many of us. I'd make a comment about people that have played games growing up with the far less powerful hardware just being able to enjoy the games for what they are, but I know that's not true. I know there are 'veteran' gamers that are picky about FPS and I know that there are younger gamers that are even less picky than I am. My nephew doesn't even understand when I go out of my way to force a game into 16:9, if I'm able to for older ones. The graphics just do not matter that much to him, and while I prefer 16:9 I totally understand where he's coming from.
#52rdking96Posted 8/18/2014 4:38:30 AM
Just built my first gaming rig a month or two ago. I didn't think 60 FPS was that important until now. I literally can't go back now.

And the games look just fine on PS4, but there are subtle differences in the PC version of games that add up to an overall nicer experience.

That being said, I have nothing against consoles and still very much enjoy playing games on my PS4.

General rule of thumb is that for co-op based games I go with PS4. Any single player game or any online game that none of my buddies play I'll go with PC. Hopefully one day I'll be able to convince my buddies to build PCs of their own.
---
i5 4690k | Asus GTX 770 | 8 GB Ballstix | AsRock Z97 Extreme4 |
Steam:The Sticky Emu | 360: The Sticky Emu | PS3/4: Cugabuh
#53Dieinafire1Posted 8/18/2014 5:26:14 PM
PC graphics makes Christmas morning every morning! Lol
---
| AMD FX-8350 @ 4.4 ghz | MSI 990FXA-GD65 V2 | EVGA SLI TITANS | 16GB 1866 DDR3 | 850W Corsair | Win8.1 64bit | 3TB HD 256 SSD | Hyper 212 Evo | 4K | PS4|Xbox1
#54corex3dPosted 8/18/2014 5:33:08 PM
not really back when the battlefield 4 beta was out my friend brought his pc up and stayed for the weekend we both played the beta I played on 360 on a sd tv and he played it on pc with a small hd tv on ultra/max surprisingly graphic wise it looked the same (I had a hd tv but it got broke a few weeks before he came up)
#55JKatarnPosted 8/18/2014 5:34:04 PM
I personally can, but I'd imagine there are people who can't tell the difference, it's certainly not as stark as the difference between 30 and 60.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#56JKatarnPosted 8/18/2014 5:44:00 PM(edited)
Fade2black001 posted...
Dieinafire1 posted...
Dragon Nexus don't be cheap bro 2 to 2500 grand isn't that much money for everything


2500 grand is like 250,000.... So a quarter of a mill is quite a bit of money.

For a fun fact.. All the consoles up to the 360 and PS3 (I want to say) does 60fps for games.


Not universally, there were plenty of 30 FPS games on the PS1/Saturn/N64 (Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, Banjo Kazooie, Ocarina of Time etc.)/PS2 etc. - typically the more ambitious (for the hardware) titles.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#57triple sPosted 8/18/2014 6:49:50 PM
ghstbstr posted...
I have a PC for gaming and currently an Xbox One, Xbox 360, PS4, PS4, and a Wii U. With all that I play more games in the past 9 months on Xbox One and PS4, just because graphics really aren't that better on PC. And anyone who says that they are better on pc has spent $1000's to get it, and spending that much isn't really worth it for better graphics when current consoles that costs $400 - $500 can look just as good on an hdtv.
The PC so called master race are a bunch of hard head baafons.
I like gaming so I don't care what it is that I am gaming on just as long as I am having fun. Which is why I have five consoles and a gaming pc.
---


You played more on the Xbox One and PS4 based on what? 90% of the same games that are available on PC? You also really discredit how much more a PC can do in general than a console can, so it's not just spending more on "graphics" at the end of the day. Graphics are A LOT better on PC. I have an Xbox One and enjoy it but playing games like Titanfall and Garden Warfare is night and day on PC compared to consoles. Playing on an HDTV would further emphasize that seeing as the pixel density increases the larger the TV is.
---
GT:Triple S 06
Steam ID:triples22
#58DmanTeePosted 8/18/2014 6:51:55 PM
PC's graphics are entirely reliant on how far developers want to push the limits. If no developer is making games that are surpassing the current benchmark, then obviously the standards will remain stagnant.
#59BogePosted 8/18/2014 9:03:22 PM
No. They're not THAT amazing. It's just nice to have high resolution and high framerate. That really makes all the difference. Of course, you pay the price to have it. I would guess that if I went from a PS4 to a PC, I wouldn't be that impressed. Yeah, it's better, but not THAT much better.
---
http://penguinpetes.com/gallery/MyWalls/pigeon_chess.png
#60JKatarnPosted 8/19/2014 11:53:21 AM
triple s posted...
ghstbstr posted...
I have a PC for gaming and currently an Xbox One, Xbox 360, PS4, PS4, and a Wii U. With all that I play more games in the past 9 months on Xbox One and PS4, just because graphics really aren't that better on PC. And anyone who says that they are better on pc has spent $1000's to get it, and spending that much isn't really worth it for better graphics when current consoles that costs $400 - $500 can look just as good on an hdtv.
The PC so called master race are a bunch of hard head baafons.
I like gaming so I don't care what it is that I am gaming on just as long as I am having fun. Which is why I have five consoles and a gaming pc.
---


You played more on the Xbox One and PS4 based on what? 90% of the same games that are available on PC? You also really discredit how much more a PC can do in general than a console can, so it's not just spending more on "graphics" at the end of the day. Graphics are A LOT better on PC. I have an Xbox One and enjoy it but playing games like Titanfall and Garden Warfare is night and day on PC compared to consoles. Playing on an HDTV would further emphasize that seeing as the pixel density increases the larger the TV is.


Except you're forgetting that there is no "PC Standard" baseline spec, PCs run the gamut from low-power ultraportables to quad-SLI water-cooled rigs and everything in between, I think what you and others mean is that PC graphics have the POTENTIAL to be better on PC, however, most people aren't using monster rigs.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES