This is why the PC is always the bleeding edge in graphics Tech...

http://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=comparison018mx4df.jpg

This makes Unreal 3 engine's capablities look like crap when it comes to doing terrain and foilage detail like this.
This is a DX10 game made by the makers of Far Cry, which during that time had some very good out door rendering capabilities. This is just unbelievable. When I first saw the bottom image I really couldn't tell if it was real or not.

 

Too bad...

You will need to have Vista for DX10 and with the way video cards are going some are predicting cards are going to hit 300 watts in the DX10 generation so you are either going to need an independant power supply or some uber kilowatt one for your whole rig..

 

Yeh. I can't imagine using up 1kilowatt per hour if you were to have a souped up gaming rig with that kind of hardware. Just think of the electric bill and the heat it will output. But those are some insane graphics.

 

Maybe, but 360 and PS3 look damn good, and won't cost me $4000 for some uber rig needed to run that. Much easier to spend say $400 on an 360, and $1,000 on say a Mac Mini and have a good computing experience and good looking games, and have $2600 in my pocket.

 

I agree with you Sonikku. PCs may be the cutting edge but the price !!! Anything could be at the cutting edge if you throw enough stuff in it. Consoles can't do this though due to t he price point. saying that, I think Sony want to change that.

Yakumo

 

Flattering screens such as that one are nevertheless jaw dropping, but that's just a tiny part in the whole presentation. To have those graphics up and running without a performance hit in actual gameplay scenarios (plus all that comes with it) sounds a bit distant for now to me.

 

Eh, they still need to add the HUD and gun graphics. Problem with those sort of shots is they hype up the game to look "realistic", then either repeat the same building several times over to save on space, or have some unseen things (vegitation looking 3D when 2D in actual game, etc). Granted, Crysis looks great, but i'll wait on the final product for judgement.

 

It's certainly detailed but like it was already said, I hate having to buy PC hardware. It's expensive and rarely stays top notch for long. I rather buy game consoles every few years than an even more expensive PC every year. I really like my X360.

 

While these shots look amazing and yeah to people who dont know what to look for they both could pass for real life i just cannot see me spending the cash to ever play games on my PC.

Its just too hard. A couple of years ago i got a P4 3.0 and a good gfx card. A year later some games i couldnt turn up the gfx on anywhere near the top end. Too expensive for me.

I think there will come a time where the PC market will have to stand up and say stop making games for top end PCs and future coming gfxs cards because gamers just cant keep up with it.

 

PC tech doesn't improve all that fast really. I'm still using a Radeon 9800pro from 3 years ago, and I have yet to throw a game at it that it couldn't handle (Oblivion and FEAR look to be the first based on what i've heard, but it seems in fears case it's mostly just due to poor optimization).

I intend to get a new comp once Vista/directx10 cards become available (via selling both my current comps, my HDTV, and using one of Dells coupons they put out periodicly for $500-$750 off $2000+ purchases), and Crysis right along with it.

 

Stills mean less and less these days. I'll wait until I see soldiers running through that grass, see if the collision detection is worth a shit. Motion is far harder than a nice polygon count.

 

I'd be more impressed if they bothered to do something other than a first person shooter.

 

I will admit being a PC gaming enthusiast is quite expensive. But if you can afford it and are smart enough to know the right times to upgrade (which is to not upgrade everytime something new comes out), then you will be part of a group that will be experience graphics console players will have to wait 4-5 years for. That is why when people buy consoles specifically for graphics, they tend to go back into PC gaming. But what is really important is the gameplay, not graphics.

The PC gaming market is a trickle down market. When something new comes out, what was new last year becomes old but not obsolete and is cheaper to where you can be able to afford it. And it has gotten to the point where most games out there now rely more on GPU than they do on CPU power. So, Fabrizo, if you were to upgrade just your video card from 9800 Pro to a 6800 AGP, Fear and Oblivion will run much smoother than they currently do. You don't have to do a full complete upgrade every year like you did before. Nowadays you have to at least upgrade the video card.

Overall, it is the PC gaming market that pushes the envelope and what makes console makers come out with newer and better consoles than before. The graphics that are just around the corner for PC gaming will most likely be the graphics norm for the next generation consoles in the next 4-5 years. The upcoming trend for PC graphics will be dual core GPUs on a single chip on a single card which will be cheaper and faster than the current SLI setup that has been going on lately (which I'm glad I was not duped into getting into that is just way too expensive).

 

Biased and untrue. The last generation of console games regularly looked better than PC games, certainly they didn't look 4-5 years older than the PC games of the time. Call of Duty looks better on 360 than it does on PC, and it's only a first-gen port. Regardless, in most cases it isn't how many polygons you have, it's what you do with them that counts, and having a hardware standard allows you to push the envelope a lot more.

 

PC games are dull ! If you don't like first person shooters or strategy games you're basically f*cked. Consoles are for the arcade gamer while PCs are for those who MUST be the best. Or at least that's what I think. Playing the latest cutting edge PC game isn't going to give me more thrills than playing a current or last gen console game. It may look better (at a cost may I add) but that's about it.

RANT TIME :dance: You could blame PCs for the downfall in arcades. Going by information posted above console systems have become more technically powerful in bigger jumps to keep up with PCs but people also say that because home consoles now rival the arcades for graphical power, people don't need to go to the arcades anymore. So logically we could blame PCs :110:

Yakumo

 

Graphics scmaphics imo. Gameplay is where its at every time. For me PCs are for work web, Consoles are for gaming!

 

http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=731

Yes, yes you can.

 

mmm crysis loving that pic my dx10 system should be ready to go in time for its launch too !

 

Afterburner Climax ray: