"Oblivion on the 360? Ran at 1024x576 btw"
And most people were still gaming at 1024x768 at the time, not that big of a difference. A quick google of Oblivion performance on the contemporary 7800GT, a card quite a bit faster than the 360's hardware, readily shows a lot of 25-40fps, 1024x768, low shadows, good draw distance. That $300 videocard in a $700 PC spit out graphics better than a $400 360? Yeah, by a hair, after digging through some ini's, reading far too many tweak guides and installing some distance-texture noise mods. In it's default state? The 360 was easily the better option.
As part of that year's upgrade I moved to a 1440x900 16:9 LCD. I got my 7600GT, Athlon 64 X2, 2GB ram machine (still "better" than 360 hardware) to run Oblivion on that thing at native resolution, but there was some serious tweaking involved, and the end result was 20-30fps. You know what was a better experience? When I dropped Oblivion in to my 360 two years later and made a second run-through of the game.
"You show me a console game that out performs it's PC version at the same settings and I'll give you that,"
On comparable hardware? Pff, everything. Take the fanciest possible hardware that you can find from 2006 and load up Mass Effect 3 on it. Both the PS3 and 360 will destroy that PC in rendering quality. Hell, Rage is written so close to the hardware on the 360 that you can take the fanciest PC hardware that you can find from 2012 and you'll still find less dropped frames on the 360 version.
Every single console generation there is a window of about 1.5 to 2 years that the consoles spit out stuff that is better than what the PCs are doing, then every single time the PC becomes the best rendering platform again after that window. This is nothing new. You'd think people would have figured this out by now. But no, every single time there is a delusional contingent of PC gamers declaring "My hardware right now is better than the console that's out in nine months!!", when history relentlessly proves them wrong time and time again.
Super Mario showed smooth side-scrolling in 1985 that PCs wouldn't see until Commander Keen in 1990. Final Fantasy IV gave us beautiful pallets and fantastic audio in an age when PCs were still mostly 16-color for their gaming and didn't have a sound card. Mario 64 rendered polygons that would choke any PC of the day to death. Final Fantasy X showed draw distances and stable frame rates that were still hard to get anywhere on a PC. Looking at Knack, it's about to happen again with mass physics objects that actually have world presence instead of just spawning from nothing, bounce twice, then disappear. Every. Single. Time.
Am I pro-console? Not really. I'm pro-game. If it plays games, chances are good that I own it. Well, except for a Vita. But then there aren't really any games on that thing, are there?
And most people were still gaming at 1024x768 at the time, not that big of a difference. A quick google of Oblivion performance on the contemporary 7800GT, a card quite a bit faster than the 360's hardware, readily shows a lot of 25-40fps, 1024x768, low shadows, good draw distance. That $300 videocard in a $700 PC spit out graphics better than a $400 360? Yeah, by a hair, after digging through some ini's, reading far too many tweak guides and installing some distance-texture noise mods. In it's default state? The 360 was easily the better option.
As part of that year's upgrade I moved to a 1440x900 16:9 LCD. I got my 7600GT, Athlon 64 X2, 2GB ram machine (still "better" than 360 hardware) to run Oblivion on that thing at native resolution, but there was some serious tweaking involved, and the end result was 20-30fps. You know what was a better experience? When I dropped Oblivion in to my 360 two years later and made a second run-through of the game.
"You show me a console game that out performs it's PC version at the same settings and I'll give you that,"
On comparable hardware? Pff, everything. Take the fanciest possible hardware that you can find from 2006 and load up Mass Effect 3 on it. Both the PS3 and 360 will destroy that PC in rendering quality. Hell, Rage is written so close to the hardware on the 360 that you can take the fanciest PC hardware that you can find from 2012 and you'll still find less dropped frames on the 360 version.
Every single console generation there is a window of about 1.5 to 2 years that the consoles spit out stuff that is better than what the PCs are doing, then every single time the PC becomes the best rendering platform again after that window. This is nothing new. You'd think people would have figured this out by now. But no, every single time there is a delusional contingent of PC gamers declaring "My hardware right now is better than the console that's out in nine months!!", when history relentlessly proves them wrong time and time again.
Super Mario showed smooth side-scrolling in 1985 that PCs wouldn't see until Commander Keen in 1990. Final Fantasy IV gave us beautiful pallets and fantastic audio in an age when PCs were still mostly 16-color for their gaming and didn't have a sound card. Mario 64 rendered polygons that would choke any PC of the day to death. Final Fantasy X showed draw distances and stable frame rates that were still hard to get anywhere on a PC. Looking at Knack, it's about to happen again with mass physics objects that actually have world presence instead of just spawning from nothing, bounce twice, then disappear. Every. Single. Time.
Am I pro-console? Not really. I'm pro-game. If it plays games, chances are good that I own it. Well, except for a Vita. But then there aren't really any games on that thing, are there?
It's been a 12 year hiatus. I'm already enjoying the prices.
