"Current Gen" Consoles Aren't "Current Gen"

**alexjlopez** · 06-17-2011, 09:31 AM

Kinda funny how people are reacting to DICE's statement following the Jimmy Fallon appearance where they showed off Battlefield 3. People are having a tough time understanding that the PS3 version doesn't look anywhere near as good as the PC version hehehe...

Battlefield 3 won't look as good on PS3, DICE says 'duh'

PS3's hardware that is currently considered "current gen" in console circles is five generations behind as far as PC video card GPU standards go. It's funny, I think some people think that the PS3 was advanced alien tech handed to Kaz Hirai by little green men in 2006 and that humanity is still working to catch up hehe--considering how hard Sony has worked to create this perception and how willing some people are to believe it.

But at the same time, the revelation that WiiU's GPU is based on ATI's R770 chipset led to the usual game sites claiming that Nintendo was using "last generation" tech in WiiU. And the bow they tie around it is that they keep saying Wii U will be "only slightly more powerful" than PS3/360 despite that when you sift through all the BS and use the same metric, PS3/360 use GPU tech that is four generations behind WiiU.

Some things never change hehehe...

**Shane R. Monroe** · 06-17-2011, 09:35 AM

You had people like Nuki coming in here talking about how the PS3 was God's Own Powerhouse and how in 10 years it will actually be MORE powerful than it was when it debuted and other such nonsense.

**Chris** · 06-17-2011, 09:43 AM

It's like I said on the other forums, Nintendo haters are going to hate. Give Nintendo criticism where Nintendo deserves criticism, lord knows there's enough legit criticism to go around.

**WorknMan** · 06-17-2011, 01:56 PM

It seems like it has taken longer this generation for consoles to show their age vs PCs than it has in generations past, though I suppose this could also be caused if developers are intentionally crippling the PC versions of games to some degree where there are also console versions, to make the porting process easier.

**alexjlopez** · 06-17-2011, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by WorknMan

It seems like it has taken longer this generation for consoles to show their age vs PCs than it has in generations past, though I suppose this could also be caused if developers are intentionally crippling the PC versions of games to some degree where there are also console versions, to make the porting process easier.

From what I gather, DirectX11 is a bigger leap for PC games that 10 was going from 9. Games developed from the ground up for 360 use DirectX9.

That being said, even the original Bioshock has some insane lighting and environmental effects on PC that make the console version look artificial and bland in comparison. It only got worse with Bioshock 2.

**NE146** · 06-17-2011, 03:08 PM

I never understood the pc vs consoles debate... when most people arguing against pc's are probably typing their thoughts ON A PC.

Kind of like I remember people dissing Xbox Mame and trying to tell me all about how good Mame is on the PC.. strangely oblivious to the fact that I obviously must have Mame configured on every single one of my PC's already.

**Shane R. Monroe** · 06-17-2011, 03:51 PM

PC gaming has oodles of issues - that's why people diss on it. You'll notice all that MW3 footage you're seeing is all PC at some INSANE resolution. The consoles will never look that good.

**TripHamer** · 06-17-2011, 04:07 PM

Consoles are always behind PC, as PC are constantly evolving and Consoles are Static for many years and must be designed with sale price in mind. If they are too expensive, no one will buy them. PC's on the other hand, you can make it as powerful as you want.

However, the gaming market is mostly with the consoles.

And Nintendo would be wise to make the U the most powerful console out there. Cause, in a few years, when the U is coming into it's prime, the PS3 and the 720 will be out and we can assume will dwarf the U in terns of Specs once again.

It's just the nature of things.

But unless there is some new breakthru in Graphics and such, it probably won't matter all that much. Depends on how things go and what's popular and such.

**alexjlopez** · 06-17-2011, 05:29 PM

Well, 360 was released a full year prior to PS3 and the extra year of planning didn't help Sony dwarf what Microsoft put out. And as it turns out, the head start allowed Microsoft to build a userbase that Sony still hasn't been able to catch up with. They also established themselves as the platform developers felt most comfortable coding in, and we saw practically all cross-platform releases built from the ground up for 360 and simply ported over to PS3.

Nintendo could claim that advantage next time around. I have no doubt Sony will claim 10, 100, maybe 1000 times more power with PS4, but I'd bet money we'll see the same result as when they claimed PS3 games would leave 360 games in the dust.

**WorknMan** · 06-17-2011, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Shane R. Monroe

PC gaming has oodles of issues - that's why people diss on it.

I might be interested in some PC games, but when I hear about some of the DRM that is employed, it makes PC gaming null and void as far as I'm concerned. I would go back to playing an Atari 2600 before I EVER installed any of that shit on my PC. If they can't make PC games without me worrying about what sort of goodies they're going to install alongside the game, they should stop making PC games. Period.