There's a difference between "running" and "running well". Sure, consoles can still run games towards the end of it's life cycle, but it'll look like crap and have low frame-rates. As an example this gen, Far Cry 3 looks better on PC with all the settings turned down to minimum then on consoles. And the last of us? Are you saying that it looks better than The Witcher 2? Crysis 3? Far Cry 3? Does TLOS have tessellation? Post-processing?
I'm not saying that PC versions of games are inferior. Of course you are going to be able to play them on higher settings when you have a machine that is way more powerful and way more expensive. The real question is: Would TLoU have benefitted (as a game) from those features you mentioned? I would argue that it would not. Similarly, with games like Journey, The Unfinished Swan, Super Mario Galaxy, Call of Duty, etc. that player is not necessarily having an inferior gameplay experience because of the lack of advanced processing power.
And consoles have no issues running AAA titles? Perhaps you remember the whole ordeal about Skyrim becoming super laggy on PS3 after your save file becomes too large.
As many PC enthusiasts would probably be quick to point out (they are all about specs, after all), the Xbox 360 version of Skyrim had no such issue, even though it was a less powerful console. That issue in particular had less to do with the PS3 lacking processing power and more to do with it being an absolute bitch of a platform to code for. Hell, even now, seven years later, my PS3 still locks up fairly regularly on the XMB. The PS3 was a horrible platform - which is why I'm confused as to why so many are rushing headlong towards the PS4.
While we're on the issue of problematic games, however, as most games as still created targeting consoles first, there are WAY more horrible PC ports than there are horrible console ports. I can't be arsed to make a list of references to this phenomena right now, but it's a truth of the industry.
I respect people who prefer consoles, but suggesting that consoles have graphics that even come close to PCs is straight-up wrong. Consoles will never and has never had better graphics than PCs.
True, but I'm not sure where I claimed that.
Basically, now isn't a great time to be building a gaming PC if you plan on buying the new consoles this holiday season. While they won't compete with $1000 PC's, the $400-$500 console you will be buying will have a significant amount of graphical oomph, and a lot of focus afforded to it by developers. With console cycles starting to become as long as they are, you would be much better off building a gaming PC a handful of years down the road when the consoles are starting to show their age. That way you could build a similarly powerful machine for much less, or get a much more powerful machine for the same money.
As always, other opinions are available.
Skyrim PS3, Minecraft 360, etc.
Also as time goes on games on the 360/PS3 started getting their graphics noticeably cut-back because because the game being on a console does not mean the power is always good enough over time (like I keep saying, consoles are just pre-built computers with a locked OS, they're not magic), there's plenty of PS3/360 games that are running on a lower resolution or with lower texture quality, etc.
See above.
@
K3Nv2:
@
RedColoredStars:
