Next gen: 1080p or 60fps....but not both!

nesf · 28-08-2013 5:50am

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm always genuinely baffled how, after all these years, this is still perceived as an either/or battle. That the revelation that a top-mid range PC is going to outperform consoles is viewed as some sort of minor outrage. That this is in any way, shape or form going to effect the market viability of the consoles. Not to say a console manufacturer shouldn't provide the best specs they can, but I'd be damned if that lower numbers and resolution made me enjoy Super Mario Galaxy any less.

Of course a well built PC is going to outperform a PS4 and Xbox One. It was the same with PS3, PS2, PS1 and back to the 16 and 32 bit generations. They're very different models of technology, affording developers very different opportunities. A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles. They have instead existed in harmony, all boxes offering unique pleasures to those who choose to use them.

Again, it's not either/or, it never has been. And if anyone is really so concerned with sheer graphical oomph that they'd opt not to purchase a console, well that's their choice but frankly you're going to miss out on some amazing games.

This, a thousand times this. Consoles are not meant to be top end machines. Why? Because people won't shell out over a grand on a console, so they can't put good enough tech in to do it. High end components are very much not an option for any company putting together a console for the masses, just wait for the Steam Box, 2 x 7790s in Crossfire it will not have. Top end machines are top end because only a small percentage of people will pay the large premium for great performance. Most people are perfectly content to use good performance cards for 1-2 years back for instance and really who could blame them?

The thing is, this is fine. Really, it's fine. For 500 quid you can't expect bleeding edge technology of this complexity (yet) so really I cannot see what people are complaining about. Christ, 500 quid wouldn't even cover the GPUs of a really high end PC.

Dcully · 28-08-2013 10:24am

Yawn and yawn again.

Id get some sleep if i were you

Big whoop that you can push BF3 at high framerates, resolution on PC

My point is its a 5 year old PC that looks as if it will outperform this so called next gen, thats just hilarious to me.

For me it comes down to games and convenience. I buy a console, plonk it under the TV, 6 or 7 years and hundreds of fun games (remember why we buy games in the first place) later I buy a new one.

Totally agree.

Some people play games to enjoy the games, others play them to count pixels and get excited over that.

Its not about getting excited, trust me its pretty hard to get excited with something one is used to every day for a decade now in this case that being 1080+ @ 60fps+ .

FYI my games collection is full of indie titles not just graphically shiney ones so yeah i play games to enjoy them, gameplay before everything else imo.

Hand on heart guys, honest question , do you people planning to buy a console not feel any disappointment that this coming gen may not achieve 60 fps or 1080?

Granted certain genres dont need 60 fps but even still the experience is all the better when that fps is reached in any game.
Some genres i wouldnt touch with a barge pole unless they atleast approached 60 fps [miltiplayer fps,rts,mobas etc,racing sims in particular]

I blame the fact im used to silky smooth gaming for far too many years,yes i always have a very high spec PC but personally i hoped 1080 @ 60 would be just standard procedure,probably my naivety but in 2013 i just expected more.

Despite all ive said and hoped for, once i can sit on the couch and play Fifa or PES at a smooth framerate i will probably end up buying a PS4 purely for the craic we have here playing fifa ad pes

gizmo · 28-08-2013 11:13am

Dcully wrote: »

My point is its a 5 year old PC that looks as if it will outperform this so called next gen, thats just hilarious to me.

What specs are this five year old PC as a matter of interest? My Q9550-based machine was built in early 2009 but has seen two GPU upgrades since, calling that a four and a half year old machine in this context would be entirely disingenuous for instance.

Dcully wrote: »

Hand on heart guys, honest question , do you people planning to buy a console not feel any disappointment that this coming gen may not achieve 60 fps or 1080?

Of course, who wouldn't like their favourite games to run smoother and at a higher resolution? A more appropriate question is whether or not my level of enjoyment of my current library of console games was diminished because of the lack of it. The answer to that? Nope.

Then again, like you I also try to play certain genres on my PC where I can experience the game in a manner which I prefer whether it's for a higher framerate or to have mouse and keyboard support, so I certainly see where you're coming from there.

Dcully wrote: »

I blame the fact im used to silky smooth gaming for far too many years,yes i always have a very high spec PC but personally i hoped 1080 @ 60 would be just standard procedure,probably my naivety but in 2013 i just expected more.

This is the thing though, you are getting more, you're just expecting too much more from the new platforms. For instance, I'm quite sure they could run current gen games at higher detail levels at 1080p@60 but with doubling of resolution and frame rates on top of the rather large leap in graphical fidelity we're seeing from some of the new titles, it's just too much to expect from them for every game.

NTMK · 28-08-2013 11:35am

Dcully wrote: »

Hand on heart guys, honest question , do you people planning to buy a console not feel any disappointment that this coming gen may not achieve 60 fps or 1080?

the consoles running at 720p60 or 1080p30 is fine imo but 4-5years down the line what will they be running and how long is this gen expected to last are the big worries for me. Development will be optimised very quickly compared to the Ps3 so they will hit their peak far quicker imo

Im hoping they use the extra cpu power of these consoles to impliment better physics and AI into games as i knew graphically the consoles werent going to set the world alight

SeantheMan · 28-08-2013 11:40am

It's about the games and software, not the graphical fidelity

PickledLime · 28-08-2013 12:15pm

Dcully wrote: »

My point is its a 5 year old PC that looks as if it will outperform this so called next gen, thats just hilarious to me.

You seem to be equating specs on paper (for the consoles) = specs for the PC.

I think everyone is getting ahead of themselves in regards to what the PS4/X1 will be capable of. People are writing the things off and we're still months from launch! I'm not gonna judge either of them until I see what talented studios are doing with them in and around Easter 2015.

One of the perks of the static hardware environment of a console is the software will eventually be optimised to within an inch of its life.

Could you imagine something looking as good as God Of War Ascension or The Last Of Us running on similar spec PC hardware in late 2006, because I certainly couldn't.

Anyway, the whole 60 vs 30fps debate, 30fps is fine for me for most genres as long as it's locked with no screen tearing. A well implemented motion blur can add to the look in a big way too. The only genre of games that I'd refuse to play at anything below 60fps are fighting games and bullethell/2D space shooters. Even racers, Wipeout 2048, GRID, NFS: MW, all great at 30fps.

Azza · 28-08-2013 1:09pm

Very few games on console give a constant 30fps experience though.
Even on PC its difficult to get a constant 60fps. Alot of people don't realise the effect v-sync has on frame rate and the input lag it causes as well.

People often say well I'm getting a constant 50-55fps on my PC games but with normal v-sync on there really only getting 30fps.

John Carmack said a while back that you get 2x performance from a console that you do from a PC of the same spec due to the optimizations you can preform.

stevenmu · 28-08-2013 3:36pm

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

ShadowHearth · 28-08-2013 3:59pm

stevenmu wrote: »

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

At 90s, most likely you had a non LCD monitor, which could do more resolution "Good", then just native. These days anything that is not native resolution on modern monitors look like ass. Games on 40inch++ TVs at 720p look like ass too.
I am lucky enough to be able to play PC 1080p on 42inch TV and 1080p makes everything look a lot damn better. I even had my console gamer friend to try out BF3 on 1080p PC and ps3 version on same TV. Needless to say I ruined his ability to play BF3 on Xbox at home for weeks.

cursai · 28-08-2013 4:07pm

My 50inch panasonic tv only blows up to 720p with a 200mhz rate what will it matter to someone like me. Nothing. No need for these higher resolutions unless im sitting within 2metres of the tv. And I won't have to hope the game runs before crashing or windows errors. And can trade in the old games in gamestop unlike pc games. Have a nice wireless controller with no need for a lead or configuring a driver to make it compatible. It'll just work.

cheap, cheerful and more than adequate fun.

stevenmu · 28-08-2013 4:11pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

At 90s, most likely you had a non LCD monitor, which could do more resolution "Good", then just native. These days anything that is not native resolution on modern monitors look like ass. Games on 40inch++ TVs at 720p look like ass too.
I am lucky enough to be able to play PC 1080p on 42inch TV and 1080p makes everything look a lot damn better. I even had my console gamer friend to try out BF3 on 1080p PC and ps3 version on same TV. Needless to say I ruined his ability to play BF3 on Xbox at home for weeks.

Yeah, that's a fair point, I find the scaling on the 360/PS3 works reasonably well, but with LCD monitors/TVs there is a definite boost in image quality when running native resolution.

Magill · 28-08-2013 4:29pm

Still wish they'd built the systems more powerful and just put the price up a bit... just have to look at how many idiots buy a new iphone or another smartphone every year for ~£500. I'd happily pay a bit more for something that will probably last me 5+ years.

Richard Dower · 28-08-2013 4:37pm

Magill wrote: »

Still wish they'd built the systems more powerful and just put the price up a bit... just have to look at how many idiots buy a new iphone or another smartphone every year for ~£500. I'd happily pay a bit more for something that will probably last me 5+ years.

They tried that....it was called the PS3

Gamers, especially console gamers;, wont justify or are willing to pay 600 Euro. A part of that is to do with retail game prices. Lets not forget that the vast majority of consoles are bought by parents for their children!

They would never fork over 600 quid and then 65 quid per game.......

lertsnim · 28-08-2013 4:40pm

I am really not bothered by it if I'm being honest

Nevermind_ · 28-08-2013 4:58pm

Richard Dower wrote: »

Lets not forget that the vast majority of consoles are bought by parents for their children!

Really?
i'd like to see a source for that, considering the average age of a gamer is in their 30's!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8564342/Average-video-gamer-is-37.html
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/726494/the-average-age-of-a-gamer-is-30-says-esa/
they may ostensibly be buying the console for the kids but many will plan on using it regularly themselves.

PickledLime · 28-08-2013 5:09pm

cursai wrote: »

My 50inch panasonic tv only blows up to 720p with a 200mhz rate what will it matter to someone like me.

Hope you turn off all that refresh rate gubbins when playing, if you're not playing with the native refresh rate of your console (assuming your using HDMI, so 60Hz) then the only thing you're gonna get is input lag.

Amirani · 28-08-2013 5:20pm

Nevermind_ wrote: »

Really?
i'd like to see a source for that, considering the average age of a gamer is in their 30's!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8564342/Average-video-gamer-is-37.html
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/726494/the-average-age-of-a-gamer-is-30-says-esa/
they may ostensibly be buying the console for the kids but many will plan on using it regularly themselves.

In fairness, that includes the people who are playing Angry Birds and Candy Crush on their iPod touch.

ScumLord · 28-08-2013 5:28pm

gizmo wrote: »

Will they have the raw power of PCs costing four figures and up? No, of course not but they were never going to have that in the first place.

A PC costing over a grand is a production level machine, My PC cost just over a grand but that extra power is for video editing like After effects and has redundancy built into the hard drives so I don't lose any data. Games don't need that kind of power at all. I never have to worry about frame rates or resolution though, bang everything up to the last and play away.

There's a constant here where people are comparing Uber PC's to consoles and of course the uber PC is going to seem expensive but you really don't need one for playing games.

My PC has been built up over ten years, which is handy. I don't have to go out buying all new stuff because the new version of windows isn't compatible with older games and hardware. That's the thing with new PC stuff, you can be guaranteed it's at least as good as before but more than likely much better.

gizmo wrote: »

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console,

Mini ATX has been out for a long time now, I built one myself. Wouldn't recommend it though, a large case is so much easier to work with and I think look better at the end of the day..

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A PS4 will not be as technically ravishing when it comes to graphic intensive games like BF4, but nor has a PC ever hosted the vast amount of delightful exclusives from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft consoles.

While we don't have those exclusives we do have a whole range of exclusives based on the adaptability of the PC. If you're into nerdy stuff like me, that being professional level race simulators there's nothing on consoles that comes close.

Lu Tze · 28-08-2013 5:50pm

ScumLord wrote: »

gizmo wrote: »

I would be happy to wager that you would not be able to build a PC with a similar form factor to a console,

Mini ATX has been out for a long time now, I built one myself. Wouldn't recommend it though, a large case is so much easier to work with and I think look better at the end of the day..

Just on this - i put in for one of these - similar size to the consoles coming out and wouldn't look out of place hooked up to the telly. Mini Itx form factor is pretty small, and with some interesting cases out there for it.

imitation · 28-08-2013 5:55pm

stevenmu wrote: »

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

Dropping to 1600x1200 in the 90s ? You must of had an ungodly pc in the late 90s with an insane monitor, biggest I remember was that size on a 21" cad screen.

My own family pc with a voodoo and later a voodoo 3 was 800x600 if I was super lucky or 640x480 otherwise. 1024 was just for the desktop !

On topic, I do think 720p will stick around, its just too darn practical. The majority will game on less than 32" at which the difference is much less noticeable. As well, are you going to spend the extra resources on better textures and more polygons or just more pixels that might just highlight how dated your game looks ? Historically I know which one has won out and sells more games.

If people start moving up in screen sizes and resses we might see some change again, who knows considering my phone has a 1080p display.

cursai · 28-08-2013 6:17pm

PickledLime wrote: »

Hope you turn off all that refresh rate gubbins when playing, if you're not playing with the native refresh rate of your console (assuming your using HDMI, so 60Hz) then the only thing you're gonna get is input lag.

Never noticed anything like that. Its advertised to have a 600hz rate but in reality ive been told its actually 200hz. Never noticed any lag on anything and theres no option to turn it down. Great tv though. Does a super job!

ScumLord · 28-08-2013 6:18pm

imitation wrote: »

Dropping to 1600x1200 in the 90s ? You must of had an ungodly pc in the late 90s with an insane monitor, biggest I remember was that size on a 21" cad screen.

Old CRT monitors used to go up to crazy resolutions. I remember having settings up in the 2000s but going back down because you simply couldn't see the writing on the screen anymore. Games typically ran in 800x600 though.

ScumLord · 28-08-2013 6:19pm

Lu Tze wrote: »

similar size to the consoles coming out and wouldn't look out of place hooked up to the telly.

The other thing about PCs these days and especially now that more programs are being downloaded is that you often don't need access to the PC. You could simply hide it if it's ugly.

tuxy · 28-08-2013 6:20pm

Input lag is not very noticeable with a controller compared to a mouse because a mouse is much more responsive.

PickledLime · 28-08-2013 6:42pm

cursai wrote: »

Never noticed anything like that. Its advertised to have a 600hz rate but in reality ive been told its actually 200hz. Never noticed any lag on anything and theres no option to turn it down. Great tv though. Does a super job!

Some people don't notice it, while it drives other folk crazy. Not sure what my mate's telly was (think it was 200Hz as well) but playing games on it felt like you were pushing through treacle. Trying to play Killzone 2 on it (which already has a hefty amount of input lag) was unbearable for myself, while my mate didn't bat an eyelid.

Your console is only refreshing the information its sending to the screen 60 times a second while the TV is refreshing it 200 times, so you end up with the visuals refreshing 3.33 times faster than the information it's receiving from the console, which is why it can be perceived as lag.

Although if you don't notice it an enjoy your TV, it's entirely moot!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 28-08-2013 7:54pm

Apart from recording, why do you need 60fps?

nesf · 28-08-2013 8:13pm

stevenmu wrote: »

I find a lot of this talk about 1080p 60fps to be a bit pointless.

I can remember in the 90s being disappointed if I had to drop my resolution to 1600x1200 to get something to run well. But I learnt pretty quickly that it didn't really matter too much, games looked pretty much as good in the lower resolutions. If it came to a choice between lowering the resolution or dropping some other graphical details, I lowered the resolution straight away.

I'd be perfectly happy with games running at 720p, but with lots of detail and effects, and most importantly, good design.

You have to bear in mind the size of the monitor and your viewing distance. Assuming a normal computer monitor set-up, you'd expect 720p to look a hell of a lot better/more acceptable on a 24" monitor than a 27" or 30" one. With 1080p looking ok on 27" but not as sharp as say 2560 x 1440.

danthefan · 28-08-2013 8:29pm

I'd like to see a 5 year old €300 PC run Uncharted 3 or The Last of Us or Gran Turismo 6.

Devs are going to get more out of the console as time goes on. I can't believe people are surprised by the fact these consoles aren't going to be as powerful as PCs, of course they aren't.

And I'll tell you why I'm getting a PS4 - it's not for 1080p (tbh I doubt I'd notice the difference between 720p and 1080p) or because it can do a certain frame rate, it's because games are going to come out on it that I want to play. End of.

nesf · 28-08-2013 8:33pm

danthefan wrote: »

And I'll tell you why I'm getting a PS4 - it's not for 1080p (tbh I doubt I'd notice the difference between 720p and 1080p) or because it can do a certain frame rate, it's because games are going to come out on it that I want to play. End of.

Sir. This is a console thread. Take your sense and go away.

gizmo · 28-08-2013 8:42pm

ScumLord wrote: »

A PC costing over a grand is a production level machine, My PC cost just over a grand but that extra power is for video editing like After effects and has redundancy built into the hard drives so I don't lose any data. Games don't need that kind of power at all. I never have to worry about frame rates or resolution though, bang everything up to the last and play away.

There's a constant here where people are comparing Uber PC's to consoles and of course the uber PC is going to seem expensive but you really don't need one for playing games.

A PC costing about a grand is far from a production machine and a cursory glance at the Building & Upgrades forum would show it's probably middle of the ground when it comes to PCs built for gaming in mind.

That being said I'm certainly not one of those people who harped on about needing a ~€1000 PC throughout the entire console gen in order to stay competitive. With the move to the next generation of consoles though, we're going to see games which do take advantages of those multiple cores, extra RAM and higher spec'd GPUs most PC enthusiasts have been (under)using for the last few years. Now is probably the best time for those kinds of machines if only for the fact that a GPU upgrade in a couple of years will probably see it through to the end of the gen.

ScumLord wrote: »

Mini ATX has been out for a long time now, I built one myself. Wouldn't recommend it though, a large case is so much easier to work with and I think look better at the end of the day..

I'm aware of mATX. My point, however, had nothing to do with its existence.

danthefan · 28-08-2013 8:46pm

nesf wrote: »

Sir. This is a console thread. Take your sense and go away.

Terribly sorry

deceit · 28-08-2013 8:46pm

I will be getting both consoles, (ps4 then xbox) but I was disappointed to hear unlike the xbox and 360 they wont be more powerful than the high end pc's that where out at the time. (This is because they want to make a profit on the consoles this time around as well as the games).
To be honest I was expecting eyefinity on new consoles and 4k resolutions, not 1080p.
At this rate I can see myself only getting about 2-3 years use out of them where as I got about 5-6 years out of the 360 before pc's are too far ahead again that I switch solely to pc gaming again.
I was expecting to have to upgrade my two gaming pc's with the next set of gpu's to even be getting similar graphics/performance but at the moment it looks like I could manage higher settings on eyefinity than the consoles can on a single screen

.
I do like a lot of the new features of the consoles which will hopefully make up for what its missing in the pure power department though and i'm delighted sony finally made a bigger joypad, the dual shock was too small to hold comfortably.

ScumLord · 29-08-2013 12:46am

gizmo wrote: »

A PC costing about a grand is far from a production machine and a cursory glance at the Building & Upgrades forum would show it's probably middle of the ground when it comes to PCs built for gaming in mind.

Anything over a grand is going to be a very high end PC. You're talking about a machine with more than 8gb of ram and possibly SSDs. There's no need to spend over a grand if you're just gaming. The only reason you'd need more ram is for dealing with things like video editing or software that handles very large files.

With the move to the next generation of consoles though, we're going to see games which do take advantages of those multiple cores, extra RAM and higher spec'd GPUs most PC enthusiasts have been (under)using for the last few years. Now is probably the best time for those kinds of machines if only for the fact that a GPU upgrade in a couple of years will probably see it through to the end of the gen.

I've been thinking the same. The mainstream games haven't been fully utilising the PCs power because they're making games for the console market. Now that there's been a step up there we should see a knock on effect for PC games.

nesf · 29-08-2013 12:51am

ScumLord wrote: »

Anything over a grand is going to be a very high end PC. You're talking about a machine with more than 8gb of ram and possibly SSDs. There's no need to spend over a grand if you're just gaming. The only reason you'd need more ram is for dealing with things like video editing or software that handles very large files.

Game on proper 30" monitors and you can easily end up over a grand. Yeah for 1080p there's little reason but at resolutions above that you won't get high end performance without some kind of dual GPU setup in many games.

Richard Dower · 29-08-2013 2:04am

gtx 780.....650 euro, you could easily splash down well over a grand

Richard Dower · 29-08-2013 2:07am

ScumLord wrote: »

Old CRT monitors used to go up to crazy resolutions. I remember having settings up in the 2000s but going back down because you simply couldn't see the writing on the screen anymore. Games typically ran in 800x600 though.

I had a mitsubishi, refresh rate of 85hz and support 2560x1600.....:D

nesf · 29-08-2013 7:59am

Richard Dower wrote: »

I had a mitsubishi, refresh rate of 85hz and support 2560x1600.....:D

I had this huge thing. When I finally, after a good few years of LCDs being standard, went for a LCD monitor I was shocked by all the desktop space I now had.

ShadowHearth · 29-08-2013 12:07pm

Richard Dower wrote: »

gtx 780.....650 euro, you could easily splash down well over a grand

Just because there is is 780, does not mean you need one. High end gpus usually give about 10% increase over mid mid/high end card, which is twice cheaper. People buy the high end gpus for epenis more then for common sense. Something like old gen 680 can be gotten for 280eu and wount be far behind 780 and will run everything way better then next gen consoles for years to come.

High end gaming machine and high end machine are 2 different things in our time. It was in 90s where the only proper use of very very fast pc was gaming. Times changed.
In the end of the day, you need to build smart pc, not a high end pc. Any fool can spend 1000eu on high end pc to play games. smart gamer will build it for less with very little performance hit and ability of upgrade for a very small price. Yes, pc gaming is not for lazy people, you need to know what you doing, but it is not complicated or expensive, As people making it look like.

stevenmu · 29-08-2013 12:18pm

Richard Dower wrote: »

I had a mitsubishi, refresh rate of 85hz and support 2560x1600.....:D

I had a high end philips one that I got cheap (I was working for a hardware company at the time). It supported 120hz which was great for 3D with a pair of eDimensional shutter glasses. It's funny to see these technologies coming back around again 15 years later

Richard Dower · 29-08-2013 12:25pm

stevenmu wrote: »

I had a high end philips one that I got cheap (I was working for a hardware company at the time). It supported 120hz which was great for 3D with a pair of eDimensional shutter glasses. It's funny to see these technologies coming back around again 15 years later

Pretty sure mind did 100Hz.....

Danonino. · 29-08-2013 12:35pm

tuxy wrote: »

Input lag is not very noticeable with a controller compared to a mouse because a mouse is much more responsive.

Can't tell if serious

tuxy · 29-08-2013 1:03pm

Danonino. wrote: »

Can't tell if serious

I am and it's true. Even something like vsync can have a noticeable negative impact on mouse movement but I have never noticed it on a controller.

Blowfish · 29-08-2013 3:30pm

nesf wrote: »

I had this huge thing. When I finally, after a good few years of LCDs being standard, went for a LCD monitor I was shocked by all the desktop space I now had.

Biggest thing I noticed switching from a large CRT to LCD was that after a few hours gaming, the room would be 5-10 degrees cooler.

Anyways in terms of the silly console vs PC stuff, for me, the performance difference between the 2 is probably bottom of my reasons to mainly stick with PC. I'm a fairly hard core Strategy, RPG, MMO, Indie and Abandonware/Old School games nerd so the tools and availability are simply far and away miles better on PC than console for my own gaming style.

To each their own I suppose.

Amirani · 29-08-2013 4:03pm

Blowfish wrote: »

Anyways in terms of the silly console vs PC stuff, for me, the performance difference between the 2 is probably bottom of my reasons to mainly stick with PC. I'm a fairly hard core Strategy, RPG, MMO, Indie and Abandonware/Old School games nerd so the tools and availability are simply far and away miles better on PC than console for my own gaming style.

To each their own I suppose.

Same situation for me.

Also, I've become less inclined to spend large amounts of time on a relatively small number of games (as is typically the case with console players). These days I get through a lot more games, probably by virtue of them being so cheap. PC makes this a lot easier to do financially.

Julez · 29-08-2013 4:34pm

NiallSparky wrote: »

PC makes this a lot easier to do financially.

Yeah, PC is just so cheap. I have a PS3 and Xbox 360, I've hardly played them at all this year as I've been playing my PC, 90% of the games I want can be played on PC and can be bought for 90% of the price of Console games. I don't bother getting games as soon as they are realeased anymore, just wait a few months and most can be gotten for about the 20 quid mark. Although I will byFootball Manager 2014 and Watch Dogs when they come out, even at that I'll probably pay less than €60 for both.

ShadowHearth · 29-08-2013 9:36pm

Okay, I have a little update on my opinion... I just played AC3 ( thanks to ps+ ) and they fecking better get to 1080p and at least stable 30 fps mark with next gen. I never knew this stuff is taken for granted on consoles. The game it self is honestly rubbish, but the amount of slowdowns and fps drops, draw distance, the level of detail and colour is just horrible.

I really expect next gen to improve performance in games. I admit, I am a spoiled brat at this stage, but this sort of stuff destroys immersion. I love my indy games and I dont expect every single game to be graphical masterpiece ( damn, I LOVE 3DS and Fire Emblem! ), but there needs to be improvement in these so called AAA games, if they expect money.

gizmo · 29-08-2013 11:47pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay, I have a little update on my opinion... I just played AC3 ( thanks to ps+ ) and they fecking better get to 1080p and at least stable 30 fps mark with next gen. I never knew this stuff is taken for granted on consoles. The game it self is honestly rubbish, but the amount of slowdowns and fps drops, draw distance, the level of detail and colour is just horrible.

From what I've read it's another 30/60fps between single and multiplayer while rendering at 1080p in both cases. As for the game itself, don't play it on the PC so, optimised it most certainly isn't.

tuxy · 30-08-2013 12:52am

gizmo wrote: »

From what I've read it's another 30/60fps between single and multiplayer while rendering at 1080p in both cases. As for the game itself, don't play it on the PC so, optimised it most certainly isn't.

Is this AC3 you are talking about?
On consoles it's rendered at 720p it tries to maintain 30 fps but will often dip as low as 20.

ricimaki · 30-08-2013 2:33am

For nearly everything that isn't a first person shooter, I'd be happy with 1080p at 30 fps. First person shooters really need steady frame rates of at least 45 fps to be playable, in my opinion

tuxy · 30-08-2013 2:37am

ricimaki wrote: »

For nearly everything that isn't a first person shooter, I'd be happy with 1080p at 30 fps. First person shooters really need steady frame rates of at least 45 fps to be playable, in my opinion

Well many console shooters have some strong aim assist which should make things playable at low frame rates.

Next gen: 1080p or 60fps....but not both!

Comments