Why are you trying to sneak the word svcks past the censor? (When the censor doesn't block it, see... )

Anyway, had to go with "Console War!!!!!" because there's no "I play on PC, which the game was made on, so I don't care about ports" option. :shrug:

The 2GB soft limit for a 32bit executable on windows also applies on x64 OS'. It can be raised to 3GB if the executable has the Large Address Aware flag enabled, either at compile time or patched later (Assuming it doesn't do fancy pointer maths that breaks without that limit - you also need to boot your machine with PAE enabled if it's 32 bit. Though those limits are windows specific, I believe most distributions of linux come with the userspace cap set at 3GB. I also believe, though have no practical experience, that for latency reasons the VRAM in a SLI/Crossfire setup is mirrored rather than pooled, and as such shouldn't count towards your addressable limit twice. But if you're using a 2GB card on a 32bit OS you need your head testing *anyway*.

As for the prices, you could well be right. Components tend to be cheaper in america *and* I wanted something that'd max things out, not just play them, and everything came to about $500, so it makes sense that cheaper components are, er, cheaper.

Why ruin 2 ports to fit 1...? I will be quite disappointed in Bethesda if they do a half ass job on TESV for the PS3.... They had 5 years to work on it, so theirs no excuse for not making the PS3 version up to what it's capable.....

You are so uneducated on the 360 and PS3 it's not even funny.

I own an Xbox 360. The PS3 has just a little bit higher graphic capabilities than the 360. (MGS4 for example) But the reason Beth can't use those slightly higher capabilities is because the PS3 has different "architecture" than the PC and Xbox 360.

That's something I'd considered: not owning a SLi/Crossfire setup myself, I couldn't be sure. However, I was assuming that they'd be semi-pooled given that, as I recall, one need not reboot the PC (merely the video cards, which reboot when starting games anyway...) to switch between using them in SLi/CrossFire and using them to power separate displays.


Oh, hadn't realized you lived outside of the USA... Yeah, outside of America, you tend to get screwed hard when it comes to hardware prices. Sadly, Newegg refuses to sell/ship to anywhere outside of the USA. Prices I quoted, just like the link, were references to Newegg... Which is not an option whatsoever to most, sadly.


As I noted before in prior posts, the first statement is inaccurate and the second statement is actually wrong.

A little bit of extra research shows that running two different-VRAM cards in SLI/Crossfire gives you the VRAM of the smallest card, which is heavily indicative of mirroring - which makes sense, the travel time over two PCI ports and the SLI/Crossfire bridge must be orders of magnitude greater than simply from GPU<=>VRAM.
As for prices, they're not *that* much more expensive over here in the UK, on average, but it does all add up, unfortunately. Still, if it ends up cheaper than a console for *me*, is must be even better value across the pond.

My guess for why they're all Xbox Ports because it is the one with least powerful hardware, so to speak. So you make a Xbox 360 game and you're sorted for the other two because you know the game can run on the 360 smoothly. Then you patch and fix what's not Xbox and you have a PS3 and PC port.

Probably a safe way to work, putting it up so it runs on the PS3 level then trying to port it to the Xbox probably won't work due to graphic issues.

I'm no pro at ports of hardware, but that's my guess; save money and easier - although brings disappointment to some.

It only disappoints me when the port to the supposedly more powerful systems is inferior to the original version. Equality would make me happy. I don't need special attention to my platform, specifically. However, with PS3 games typically getting an inferior version of multiplatform games in comparison to the 360, I'm a bit disheartened.

Actually, I can't remember now. Maybe I dreamed that up?

Part of it might be that, as far as I can tell, developing for the Xbox 360 is by far the easiest. Microsoft spent a LOT of money and resources making their XNA development kits pretty thorough and easy to use. They can also be used for the PC as well: hence why most PC versions are ports of the 360 version, as they basically just take the "lazy way out" by copying over the 360 version. Note that the SDK has nothing to do with the actual hardware design; PC performance hence tends to suffer as a result because it's basically trying to run 360 code.

Really?
You do realize all games are made on PC or some form of computer, right?
You can't MAKE a game on an Xbox
Crysis 2 was made on PC and I've seen the PC graphics, which are amazing.


But in all seriousness, WHO THE HELL CARES?
Graphics aren't what matters, I think we can all agree that gameplay comes first and graphics are only a bonus if the developers had the time to consider making them as good as possible
I want a game that plays well, has a long story line, has thousands of side things to do, and has variety in armor/weapons/environment. I couldn't care less if it looked like Crysis, I honestly don't care. If it's that big of a deal to you, then maybe you should consider going outside and appreciating how good real life is and take a moment to realize that video games are getting significantly shorter and smaller as the graphics get better. Look at a game from the 90's and compare it to some of the games from today. I beat both Drakes Fortune games in under 3 hours. I bought and played through almost all the recent games to come out and they're all so short I would have better spent my time doing chores in the time I played that short, boring piece of crap game I got for $60. The point of playing a video game is to escape real life and have fun, not to feel like the game is real life. How am I supposed to have the slightest bit of fun if every game that comes out is so dumbed down for the sake of graphics? I would like to enjoy the game I spent $60+ on because that's what games are for.

In short, the console rivalry BS that has been going on for ages is just plain stupid. I own a PC, an Xbox, and a PS3 and I own them so I can play games that might come out exclusively for that console. I like Ratchet and Clank, I play that on my PS3. I like Halo, I play that on my Xbox. I like Guild Wars, I'll play that on my PC. I don't care if one console has better graphics than another, I'll play the game on PC anyway for the sake of modding, I might get it for Xbox to stop those urges to pull up console commands and cheat my ass off. I'd rather they spend time making the game as diverse and enjoyable as possible than to waste time trying to make it so that PS3 fan-boys can rub in the Xbox users' faces that they have better graphics.

I think I'll go with a different option for the poll: Todd plays on 360. Todd knows best.

I love the idea that people seriously think developers have their graphics programmers doing nothing at all while the rest of the game is being made, and then put them to work later. It don't work like that.

IGN has a side by side comparison of Crysis 2 on the 360, PS3, and PC. PC is much better But 360 and PS3 are the exact same. I dont really care about which is better though. I just want the game. However, it is easier to make the 360 port the same as PS3.

Although i do agree that we should keep this from being a console war, understand I do have to comment on one thing. The XBOX is meant for gaming. The graphics card and everything may not be the best but it runs smooth which really matter when it comes to hard core gaming. While the PC does (can have) have the best of everything, my PC has the worst of everything. The PS3 is essentially a supped up PC- so yes, the graphics cards and everything are better than that of the XBOX (not by a lot, but i will admit it is a bit better in that sense). However, the PS3- more often than not- is not used for hard core gaming (with a few exceptions- including Skyrim). While the PS3 is really good at a lot of things, the XBOX is extremely good at the one thing I care about: hardcoe gaming.
Sorry- I had to say something (I am an obvious XBOX fan). I am glad that the PC version is not a port, but I am unfamiliar with PS3 ports. If it will cause the release date to be pushed back, I am completely against it however. I am fine with the PS3 release date being pushed back (you can wait if you so choose), but I don't think that those of us who only play on the XBOX or PC should have to wait for it. If they will make the PS3 release date different simply for the sake of not being an XBOX port, okay, but other than that, sorry but its not worth the wait.
Again, I apologize but I had to comment

@Scorch326 - What exactly is "hardcoe gaming," anyways? I mean, I can't think of a thing about the Xbox 360, in terms of gaming that my PC can't do better. Does that make my PC even more "hardcoe?"

If anything, the Xbox 360 is nothing but a stripped down bare bones computer, stripped down to the point that it can only do one thing. And it's not even the best at it.

Yeah, you get exactly what you pay for. If you pay $500 for a PC, you should reap all the benefits of owning that PC. However, if you're paying $50 for a game, you shouldn't expect to get more for that $50 than anyone else buying that same game. The platform is irrelevant because the product is the game itself. $50 = $50, no matter the platform.

That's probably why it's not being made for the Wii. The developers, for whatever reason, set their standards for the 360/PS3, which most PCs are also capable of handling. Of course, if it were being made for the Wii (and sold at the same price), I would expect the same graphical quality as I would storyline and gameplay.


There's a major difference between PCs and consoles. With consoles, any game released for that console is always going to take advantage of the hardware provided -- never requiring more, though sometimes needing less. With PCs, games that require better hardware will undoubtedly be released at some point, forcing you to invest more and more to ensure you're enjoying the game as much as everyone else (if not more).

Like I said before, I spent $1,500 on an ASUS machine that was supposedly made for gaming.. yet it can barely handle games like Oblivion and CoD: Black Ops (both of which my 360 handles like nothing).

That's because people don't pay attention to the quality level and see how it compares visually, because that whole "settings menu" is missing from consoles. The reason the 360 handles Oblivion "like nothing" is due to a lot of cut-backs:

• Only a 1024x576 resolution.
  
• Framerate capped to 30, not 60.
  
• LOD scaling set back around halfway.
  
• Many draw distances reduced.
  
• No anisotropic filtering.
  
• AA set to only x4.

If you set a PC's settings down to match the 360, it winds up running a LOT better. But rather, we make unfair comparisons because we think that "the consoles do it better because they can run it on low better than my PC can run it on max."

Because a console only ever comes with one fixed set of hardware, and they amount to many millions of users, it allows a developer to justify spending the time and money tweaking with the settings until they find the best-looking one with the least slowdown for THAT setting: work that PC users have to do individually. And because you can't tweak the settings yourself, there's no "flick one switch to watch performance plummet" as is often the case on the PC: instead you just get one set of settings that's more or less idealized. If you spend the time/effort on the PC, you can get similarly impressive results. (for one, I played Oblivion on a computer even older than the 360... And it ran better at higher settings)

I ran Oblivion on a desktop I built in 2002, and it ran it just fine. Granted, it wasn't as good as it ran on my laptop I got `08, but it was decent.

I don't see how it's an unfair comparison. If my console can run Oblivion better than my PC, and still look as good as it does with all those cutbacks, it is better than my PC which can't handle the game without lagging on medium settings.

I'm content with how the games look on my console because they look the same on every other console (which basically cost around the same). I'm not content with how games look on my PC, however, because I'm forced to invest as much as everyone else to have my game look as good as theirs.

Yeah, but you know what? That PC you invested in? It can do so much more than their consoles can. So I suppose if you're investing in a PC solely for gaming, you might feel shafted. If you invest in your PC because it's a multi-purpose tool, that's another matter entirely.

I own a PS3, but all I am asking for is that if the PS3 version is ported from the 360 version (which is most likely the case anyway), I'd just like for it to be decent and play well.

Sure, but that's a "jack of all trades, master of none" type of thing. I'd be better off investing in a console that's specifically tailored to gaming and simply buying a PC that can handle only what I need it to handle. If I were to get a PC for gaming, there's absolutely no point in being cheap because some games would be limited -- something you never have to worry about on the 360 (having a setting in front of you even if you can't actually use it). I get enough of that driving down 30mph roads in a car that's capable of 120. >./>

A lot of peoples recent perspectives in this thread follow the lines of "make it equal, then nobody is shafted" <--- This is wrong.

I have a pc, a ps3. And I had a xbox before It died. And each specific platform should look as good as it's hardware allows. And YES, that includes the pc.

If the ps3 has less video ram, lower the shadow resolution. But increase the draw distance. If the xbox 360 can do aa at little cost, allow it to.

If the pc can run tessellation, and dx11 features, then implement them.



Also, if someone purchased a pc, that cost them a lot, yet they complain about how their consoles can run things better. Learn to research. Rather than get angry at pc's in general. Pc's are specific things, they reward you for the work you put into them. This is common knowledge.

A pc that costs a hundred dollars more than a console, will run games better than that console. If you know how to find deals and build a pc yourself. If you purchase a dell or some preconfigured thing. Then yes, it might be useful as a paper weight because it has some budget processor but a really nice glossy black case. That's not the pc's fault, it's your fault.

Consoles run most games at 20-30fps. And not even that, all the time. This gives me headaches, lacks immersion, and certainly does not run better than a budget pc. Tailored?

What exactly does this mean. All my loaded programs right now take up 500mb of 16,000mb of memory. The cpu useage of other programs while i run my game is 1%. If that.

Tailored? What? No. Seriously. What?


I will be getting skyrim for ps3 and pc. In case something goes wrong with either platform, i have another I can use. Repair takes a long time.