love how you say there arent any differences... the console version has lower res textures, lacks tesselation. Also the screen is not from the pc version's highest setting, namely there is no tressfx.
a mid range card can max out bf3...
saying nvidia is superior isnt quite true, it goes back and forth, now if you said that intel is superior to amd, then yes they are (also much more expensive)
after the 13.1 drivers for radeons the most powerful single gpu on the market was the hd 7970, now it is the titan (which costs almost twice the amount the 7970 does.)
no game out there now will use even close to that at 1080p, not even pc crushing games.
the only way a game can use that much memory is if it is running eyefinity (multiple monitors)
well that was a waste of time... hurr durr killzone uses DOF, so do other games.. really! slap me silly, I thought guerilla invented DOF...
Yay, cant wait for it to release.
noice, my system will stomp this game
phenom II x6, hd 7950 3gb!
uh no the xbox was 400 and 500 there buddy... i purchased my xbox in 09 and it cost 400 for an elite, the pro was either 349 or 300 cant remember exactly.
edit, did some research and apparently it was 399.. could have sworn it was 499. oh well.
4-5 controllers?
um no, if i didnt trade my original dualshock 3 in it would still be going strong now.
bought in 2008 and i traded it in when i replaced my phat 60gb in october last year. 4 years of solid use on the same controller.
the triggers are redesigned.
look
Nothing? extra ram doesnt miraculously mean better visuals...
sigh.
dont get me wrong, its really awesome to have all that ram but dont get all hyped up that the game will suddenly get significantly better visually, the cpu and gpu still need to be up to snuff to make use of it.
its not so much that they arent used to their full potential its that there is a lot of overhead on a pc that gets in the way. they cant use them to their full potential.
the os
Direct x
programming for different architects (amd, intel, nvidia)
its simply not possible to get the same efficiency out of a pc that you can get out of a console, they need to be absurdly powerful.
this article is a couple of years old but the statme...
I meant NEW games, and my example for pc games were newly released games. as in games less than 6 months old.
If you plan to stay current with games as they come out having a pc is cheaper. I preordered and paid off tomb raider to the tune of 33 dollars, and tomb raider isnt even out.
a console is more economical in the sense that you pay less up front but the games are much more expensive.. besides that most people will end up buying a second console because they have terrible lifespans.. so where are the savings again? ive spent 600 totall on xbox 360 consoles and 900 totall on my ps3's... went through 2 each.
the last two pc games i purchased: far cry 3 and tomb raider were both about 32 bucks. most pc games are in the 15-25 range in less than a yea...
pretty much.
the exclusives are why, even after switching primarily to pc i will still get consoles.
to be expected, the architecture is completely different. they either need to figure out how to emulate ps3 games (no small task because of the cell) or rewrite the games..
oh well.
the game is f2p... as in FREE, so it damn well better stay that way.
since the ps4 is all amd maybe that will improve the piss poor performance on an all amd gaming rig (like mine)
my pc is better.
off topic, but as of late it seems amd is getting their act together with drivers. 12.11 to 13.2 have all been fantastic.