Tech Comparison: Resident Evil 5 PC

Breathing new life into the undead?

Months after the debut of Resident Evil 5 on console, Capcom has finally seen fit to unleash the PC rendition of its latest survival horror epic. Nearly anyway - it's out next month. Built upon the same Framework MT engine that powered its previous cross-platform efforts such as Devil May Cry 4 and Lost Planet, it effectively allows the enthusiast gamer to take hold of the standard-setting visual assets of the original console versions and transplant them into the PC realm where graphical quality is limited only by the amount of money in your wallet and the processing and rendering power it buys you. It's an intriguing opportunity to check out one of the most popular console games of the year running at the very limit of its graphical potential.

If you're curious about how well the game runs on your particular set-up, Capcom has made available its own benchmarking tool, which serves not only to show you how well the game runs on your specific PC set-up, but also acts as an "unplayable demo" if you will, covering several segments of gameplay along with one of the RE5's most memorable cut-scenes. We talked about it in-depth in a blog post a while back.

So, just how much of an improvement is the final PC code over the existing console games? Let's roll out the comparisons, kicking off with a couple of very different screenshots. The aim of the exercise here is to compare Resident Evil 5 on PC to the better of the two available console versions (that'll be Xbox 360 then, as discussed in the original Face-Off) but with a twist: the new computer version is set to run at native 1080p, while 360 is configured to run at a comparable upscaled resolution. It's an interesting test to carry out, especially as the Xenos GPU scaler tends to produce excellent results on well anti-aliased images (RE5 on 360 uses a variable AA solution depending on load... if there's processing power to spare, it'll do full-on 4x multi-sampling AA).

As you can see, the first shot, based on the heavily post-processed cut-scene, reveals little difference aside from a somewhat dialled-back blur effect. There's additional detail resolved in Sheva's skin in particular, but not much else to make the PC version considerably superior. However, moving to the bottom set of images based on general gameplay, we get a better idea of the kind of additional detail unfettered 1080p can offer.

For more direct comparisons, there's a whole raft of screenshots available in our comparison gallery, while for those hoping to see how the games look in video form can check out this HD head-to-head on Eurogamer TV. The video is cropped to 720p (but not downscaled), and slowed down to retain clarity. This helps out in terms of comparing overall image resolution, but in many respects, it is also somewhat counter-productive too.

While the screenshots give some idea of the additional clarity a well-specced PC can provide, what they do not do is give any sense of the look and feel imbued upon the game by targeting 60FPS for gameplay. On our top-end Core i7 running at 3.33GHz combined with the NVIDIA GTX295, we are able to easily maintain 1080p at 60FPS, with just one or two annoying exceptions (fire and water in any given scene seems to inflict anything up to a 20 per cent performance hit). With everything set to the maximum and anti-aliasing set to a reassuringly high 8x, gameplay is generally super-smooth, control feels more responsive and obviously there is that very nice visual edge over the console version in that we have 2.25 times the level of detail. Certainly, when the 30FPS WMV video sequences kick in, they're blurry and jerky in comparison to the gameplay, whereas the same video files integrate very nicely into the Xbox 360 game, to the point that many believe they are engine-driven in common with most of the game's cinematics.

The PC version also has the luxury of being able to enable and disable v-sync at will - a graphical tweak denied to owners of the console games. In the case of PS3, it's locked on, resulting in noticeable frame-rate drops and poorer controller response in demanding scenes while Xbox 360 in 720p mode, on average, manages to tear around five per cent of the console's 60Hz output. The Microsoft console suffers further when set to 1080p mode, with a puzzlingly larger amount of torn frames that varies from session to session, even on the same scenes. The fact that even the 720p30 WMV files are suddenly able to tear suggests that whatever is causing this phenomenon, it's not actually the Framework MT's renderer, and it's not an additional processing load that might be impacting performance of the Xenos GPU. Quite why this happens, why it is seemingly exclusive to Capcom Framework MT games, and why (assuming it is a bug), it hasn't been fixed by the engineers remains something of mystery.

However, perhaps the biggest surprise in putting together our comparison is that the Xbox 360 version is running at the PC's equivalent of having virtually every setting at the absolute maximum (anti-aliasing and resolution apart, obviously). Upping the resolution forces the game to use its max-detail LOD models at all times, and mip-mapping that is clearly evident in the 360 build is eliminated, but other than that the games are a match.

In a sense we know that Capcom is holding out on us here: the cut-scenes feature models of various complexity for the zombies and the main characters, and you would think that these could be factored into the gameplay for the PC version. However, it is clear to see that for all the beautiful additions the resolution and frame-rate boost gives the game when running on a well-specced computer, Capcom has made little actual effort to make Resident Evil 5 any better on the PC whether you're talking from a technical or gameplay perspective. What enhancements there are come as standard from the Framework MT technology. This is doubly surprising in that our comparison is based on the game running exclusively in DirectX 10 mode (Xbox 360 is mostly based on DX9). This suggests that the DX10 mode in the PC game is effectively serving to boost performance as opposed to image quality levels.

For the true ultra hardcore enthusiast, Capcom has included support for NVIDIA's stereoscopic 3D glasses, but for the best performance this does rely somewhat on you owning a display capable of 120Hz. You'll also need to tweak your system to sustain an effective 120FPS using the benchmark tool. I was able to do this by dropping down to 720p and dialing back the AA, but due to the lack of appropriate display I was unable to test this particular mode.

And so we reach the big question: is Resident Evil 5 worth buying on PC? From a personal perspective, the arcade-like look and feel of the game running at maximum HDTV resolution at the smoothest refresh rate helped to elevate the gameplay experience to something far more preferable than what we were given on console. Although clearly designed for 720p, the game still looks the part when pushed to the limits where so many console ports fail with basic geometry and low-resolution textures. All of the performance-related limitations of the console version can be effortlessly lifted by throwing enough horsepower at the problem and the result is a game that feels significantly improved over its console outing in terms of look and feel. But make no mistake, it is the same game, and its main problems are primarily in the gameplay department (as covered by Kristan in the original review) rather than the technology.

That said, if you don't own a console at all and you're a newcomer to the game, it's well worth a punt, and even if you have already played it to completion, Games for Windows Live integration basically means there's another 1000 gamerscore to ruthlessly purloin. However, much as I might like the game, it's clear that Capcom doesn't have that much love for the PC player. Bearing in mind that the only tangible improvements over the console build are based on resolution and edge-smoothing (plus support for the richer FP16 pixel format if you really want to be picky), it's not as if a whole lot more in the way of engineering has gone into the game over the console versions. Indeed, I suspect the decision to delay the release is more about getting as much revenue out of the PS3 and Xbox 360 releases without any share-stealing from PC piracy.

That being the case, perhaps Resident Evil's biggest problem is that a lot of the potential userbase has already played it, and since the actual game is good but not great, there's little in the way of incentive to double-dip unless you have an ultra-powerful PC where the game really does look and feel a step beyond its console incarnations.

Comments (35) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • IneptPercy #1 3 years ago

    I have actually waited for this as the 360 demo at 1080p put me off with all the tearing. Having ran the benchmark I get 40-45fps at 1080p with 4xAA which looks fine to me.

    At £18.95 its a no brainer for me.
  • matrim83 #2 3 years ago

    @ Richard I dont know if you can answer this or not but what about keyboard and mouse controls in the game? Do they work smoothly?
  • patchbox360 #3 3 years ago

    stop and shoot hahahaha
  • cianchristopher #4 3 years ago

    Thanks for the info Richard, I used to occassionaly double dip and get PC versions in addition to my Xbox 360 versions of games (F**king waste of money if you ask me these days!). But I won't be doing that anymore (see Grand Theft Auto 4). Definitely not with this game, though I do confess that the thought crossed my mind at one point...

    If anyone decides to comment after me, do you think it's worthwhile setting your Xbox 360 to 1080p or is it better to leave it on 720p in the dashboard? I have a 1080p TV, but to my eyes I don't really see a difference when I change the settings. Hence I've left it on 1080p. But, with the additional tearing evident in Resident Evil 5 at 1080p, and the fact that no games actually render at 1080p (they're almost all 720p or less) it makes me wonder if performance is being impacted in any way on other games by scaling them up all the way.
  • Darren #5 3 years ago

    @cianchristopher - I think it is better to leave the 360 set at 720p as it is the native rendering resolution of the console for most games and anything higher tends to introduce issues such as slowdown and tearing in some games as you mentioned.

    All the Framework MT games have issues with anything higher than 720p on the 360 and even at 1360x768 games like Dead Rising and Resident Evil 5 can have horrendous amounts of screen tearing. If you can live with that then 1080p works fine for the majority of games. Of course, you could run 1080p for all non-Capcom games and just switch back to 720p for theirs (makes me wish you could set resolutions for each game from the game itself really).

    Most HDTVs do a pretty decent job of upscaling anyway so unless you sit a few inches from the screen you're not going to notice any appreciable differences in my opinion between letting the HDTV do the scaling or the Xbox 360. The only reason to use 1080p really is for the handful of native 1080p games such as Virtua Tennis 3 and FIFA Street 3.
  • Darren #6 3 years ago

    P.S. I should add that letting the HDTV do the upscaling to 1080p can introduce some input lag but since most console games run at 30 fps I doubt you'd notice it.
  • IneptPercy #7 3 years ago

    My 360 is set to 1080p and most of the time it makes no difference, but as mentioned the resi 5 demo suffered for me.

    There seems to be an advantage on the sub 720p games as it renders at say 640p and scales to 1080p where on the 720p setting it would mean the image would go from 640p to 720p in the consoles then 720p to 1080p on the TV.

    In my case I am happy to just wait for PC versions like I have done with this game and only really use the 360 for exclusives these days.
  • Adi-C #8 3 years ago

    "Certainly, when the 30FPS WMV video sequences kick in, they're blurry and jerky in comparison to the gameplay"

    Ungh! Does that mean some scenes in game are movie files, they're not rendered in real time? Are you referring to the full pc version of RE5? A finished one?
    That would seriously suck, gameplay looking better than the cut-scenes...
  • TheMoonRat #9 3 years ago

    "it's clear that Capcom doesn't have that much love for the PC player"
    An actual decent stable port is fine by me!
  • Darren #10 3 years ago

    "... it's clear that Capcom doesn't have that much love for the PC player"

    I think that is a very unfair statement.

    You cannot expect a multiformat game to look significantly better on one platform than another when they all share most of the same assets. To re-do the assets for the PC version would be too costly and not worthwhile. However, Capcom, unlike many multiformat developers, do allow for a large number of customisation options in their game to allow you to maximise the image quality far beyond what the console are capable of and for that I'm thankful. They even support AA and v-sync, something that's been conspicuously missing from a number of multiformat games I've played lately.

    After the lousy lazy lame ports that were FUEL, Bionic Commando and *spits* Transformers: RotF I'm grateful that Capcom put any effort into their PC games. With Resident Evil 5 and Batman: Arkham Asylum though it's clear that there are still some developers who DO care about the PC.
  • Bagpuss #11 3 years ago

    "This suggests that the DX10 mode in the PC game is effectively serving to boost performance as opposed to image quality levels."

    Well it aint working, because on my AMD 720 Triple core CPU @ 3.4Ghz and a Radeon 4850 1Gb, DX 10 mode is upto 25% slower than DX9 in the benchmark demo....

    Thats with Windows 7 64bit, and 4Gb of 1066 DDR2..using Catalyst 9.7 Drivers.

    Also whats with the massive drop in frame rates as soon as you enable AA.....2xAA results in upto a 30-40% drop in frame rates.....

    Its the same in the Streetfighter IV benchmark Demo, which uses the same Gfx engine.....



  • Salaminizer #12 3 years ago

    that's a really bullshit conclusion. I also didn't know developers needed to compensate a delay with extra stuff.
  • Darren #13 3 years ago

    @ N@ - The PC version can run at higher resolutions though, supports DX10 and mouse and keyboard controls and runs at higher framerates than 30 fps with better texture filtering, AA and shadows than the console versions. I never expected anything beyond those as (a) it's a multiformat game; and (b) neither Devil May Cry 4, Lost Planet nor Street Fighter IV on the PC had any real enhancements other than image quality ones and more customisation options.

    I can't understand why anybody was expecting more really; being able to play RE5 at 1080p at 60 fps is surely sufficient? It's not like Resident Evil 5 on the consoles was an ugly game anyway. :?
  • IneptPercy #14 3 years ago

    As much as I would love to say this hasn't been delayed due to piracy... it probably is the case.

    Piracy is worse on the PC as there is no mods needed apart from maybe swapping a few files or a patch, meanwhile on the 360 you need to flash it, you may get banned from xbox live etc, PS3 you will need a blu-ray burner and black blu-ray discs (is it even been done yet).

    Dare a say the lower prices it can be got at are enough compensation for me, but even at £18.95 people will pirate this.

    There tactic did work on many people, you will notice they also said no PC port will be done at first, at this point I thought I might just get it on the 360. But rumours and logic said there would be a PC version so I have waited and was right to do so.

    Basically impatience may actually push some PC payers and pirates to get the 360/PS3 version with some games, if the PC versions was available on day one the consoles would have lost sales to the PC but not all those copies would have been paid for.

    Dare I say as a collective us PC gamers have brought this on ourselves, not says we are all guilty but we will all be punished.
  • Darren #15 3 years ago

    Hehehe... I've just opened up those 360/PC pictures in a window to actual size ensuring that the placement is exactly the same and swiching between the two is like having sharp (PC) and blurry (360) vision, kind of like putting on and taking off a pair of glasses. The 360 version looks superb but it looks noticeably softer than the PC version (to be expected since the former is scaled) but for most it is probably only obvious in screenshot comparisons.

    I guess it ultimately depends on your viewing distance and the size of the screen you're using as most console owners play on large screen TVs or HDTVs from the other side of the room whereas PC owners tend to play them from much closer on a monitor. For example, I play games at a desk on a 24" monitor from only a few feet away typically so the extra sharpness and detail of a 1920x1200 image are much appreciated over an upscaled 1280x720 one.
  • Darren #16 3 years ago

    @IneptPercy - A little off-topic but apparently Wolfenstein is being released on the PC this week in Europe but has been delayed until 28th August for the consoles. I doubt that decision has anything to do with console piracy. ;)

    How does delaying a PC game stop it from being illegally downloaded eventually anyway? You say that if the PC version of RE5 had been released at the time as the 360 and PS3 version then it would have affected sales of the latter formats?

    Why?

    Sure, some people who own consoles and powerful PCs such as myself would have opted for the best (and cheapest) PC version but that's not true of everyone. Many people probably have PCs that can browse the internet but aren't powerful enough to run the latest games, that may be why they own a cheaper console? That was certainly true of me until I bought a new PC last December. My old machine was great though for everything else EXCEPT games!

    If anything delaying PC games for months likely has an adverse affect on sales as pissed off PC owners decide that they'll download a game for free out of spite rather than pay for something that came out on the consoles two months ago. Since the bulk of the advertising is focused on the initial console release that means that the PC version is more likely to get overlooked and end up with poor sales too. IMO, it is always better to release multiformat games on all formats at the same time rather than delaying one or more versions.
  • IneptPercy #17 3 years ago

    Darren:- Good point, to be honest both of us could be right on this I didn't think of it that way. I do believe the number of PC gamers is growing, but we can't be sure. Dare I say I know a few people who would have downloaded this but just bought a console version instead due to the delay.

    But as you say how many will download out of spite? with that how many never had any intention of paying? as mentioned to me the cheaper price and better visuals are enough for me to part with my money.

    Shall we agree to disagree, we both don't actually know why this has been so delayed as there is no evidence of extra work, if could just be they wanted more sales on consoles as they make more money, even if all PC sales where legit they cost less which must mean less going back down the food chain.

    back with the general discussion, I think a £130 console matching a £900 PC isn't very really true. At a guess I would say £300 will get you a PC to match the consoles (720p etc). Yes it is still more expensive but it will do a lot more than a 360 aswell, plus games are generally cheaper.

    I do think on an PC gaming is generally affordable now, yes you can spend a fortune but you don't have too. I personally keep my PC just above the best value curve, so may get slightly better than the best value but usually quite far off the top end. With the top end you can spends easily 50% more and get 5% better performance than the next best.
    Edited by 1 at 17/08/09 @ 16:12
  • Shabtai #18 3 years ago

    The end-conclussion of the article is unfair. No mention of the x3 enemies in the Mercs mode and close to no word about the mouse and keyboard controls that are spot-on, according to the hands-on.

    So, a better running,looking,controlling version of the game. I don't know what the author expects out the PC version to have?
  • Bagpuss #19 3 years ago

    "a £300 pc can match a 360/ps3 visually,you must be joking right.the pc "

    No.....you just need to look better.

    [link url=http://www.overclock ers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=FS-180-OK&groupid=43&catid= 1445&subcat=
    ]http://ww w.overclockers.co.uk/showproduc...[/link]

    There you go...£340 and its at least twice as powerful as 360 or Ps3.

  • Katsumoto #20 3 years ago

    Your 400 quid pc has ps2 graphics? Did you by any chance buy it in 2004... From pc world? My pc from 2007, now worth well under 500 quid, can run the resident evil 5 benchmark at over 60 fps without straining and at high detail. The thought of spending 900 quid on a pc is a bit ridiculous unless you want the absolute cutting edge.
  • Uncle_Spanks #21 3 years ago

    I have sat through the RE5 benchmark and played the XBOX 360 version. The graphics differences are NOT slight and are in fact very noticeable. The PC version is sharper, crisper and a lot more pleasant on the eye at native 1080p, especially when you are sat close to the screen. This article is misleading.
  • IneptPercy #22 3 years ago

    "a £300 pc can match a 360/ps3 visually,you must be joking right.the pc im on cost £400 and its graphics are ps2 level at best.not everyone has the technical knowledge to build/run a gaming pc.so how much is a ready built alienware going to cost me to match say killzone2 or indeed the console re5,this is a fairer example as you dont get the 360 in "bits" do you."

    I will give you that I am talking about if you spec it yourself but still ready built £400 should easily match the consoles, tip one... don't buy from alienware.

    With that I really wouldn't bother PC gaming unless you are willing to learn about how to put a PC together, its is as simple as lego to build in many respects as you can't do too much wrong. The real key is learning about overclocking which can save a lot of money.

    The reason I say learn about them is it can be best to do small upgrades, I often upgrades graphics cards when there is a good jump in performance yet my current one still has some value.

    I will say its not for everyone, if you really don't want to have to think about these things then stay with consoles, its like a round about. When the 360 came out to build a PC to match that at the time was easily £1000+ so just wasn't worth it to many, as the consoles age PC parts get cheaper until we are at the point we are now where a better PC is affordable. Soon enough there will be a '720' and 'PS4' which will again take the crown and the process continues.
  • Nithron #23 3 years ago

    I paid about £400 for my PC, over a year ago, and it can indeed match and surpass an Xbox or a PS3.

    That said though, I did build it myself, basically because I couldn't afford a ready-built one which was that powerful. PC gaming on a budget is more of a hobby really, than a means to an end like a console is.

    On the other hand, PC games are cheaper, and the online is free...
  • Simplex #24 3 years ago

    Speaking my brain: On x360 RE5 in 1080p is unplayable due to horrible tearing.
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/09 @ 08:28
  • lagoonalight #25 3 years ago

    Last I checked there were like hundreds of games of all categories that don't ever even see the light of day on PC. So while console owners play all their exclusives you keep up with your benchmarks and mouse shooters no one will care. As for the R5 this game was obviously a port and really there is not much difference here. Yeah, it's higher resolution but if you play even say 5 feet away from a 27 inch tv you will notice hardly a thing. Some of you PC guys are just dooshbaggery incarnate. Who really cares as long the artstyle is great what resolution it's at. Of course, I only play PS3 exclusives that PC gamers cannot touch. And in american dollars that PC is like 600 hundred dollars and it doesn't have bluray.
  • UncleLou #26 3 years ago

    Last I checked there were like hundreds of games of all categories that don't ever even see the light of day on PC

    And there are hundreds of games of all categories that don't ever see the light of day on consoles, so your point is? Especially games of a slightly more cerebral nature are still sorely lacking on consoles.
  • Katsumoto #27 3 years ago

    @lagoonalight

    Wow, a games library argument. That's a new one! The PC has a games library stretching back almost two decades. I don't think the ps3 is really going to outmatch it in that department. Luckily I own both a PC and a playstation, so no worries there for me. Hurrah!
    Edited by 2 at 18/08/09 @ 08:43
  • Rubarack #28 3 years ago

    The bleeding edge of PC gaming is dead and good riddance to it quite frankly. The 360 can compare to the PC in graphics in some instances but not others, but this means there's really no need to spend £900 on a PC. You can get an absolute monster for half that these days, and not have to pay through the nose for Wifi support, online and a decent sized hard disk or get gouged on game prices for licensing fees. In the past I begrudgingly put up with PCs because of the amazing exclusives, but now they're a genuinely great option for multiplatform games.
    Edited by 1 at 18/08/09 @ 13:03
  • womble #29 3 years ago

    "I've played through RE5 on both the 360 and PS3 (the best looking console version) "

    I think you mean that the 360 has the best looking console version, as documented here at DF, as well as by anyone who has eyes. ;)


  • Buran #30 3 years ago

    I have a Q6600 oced to 3.0 Ghz with 2 GB DDR2 and a GTX 275. The bechmark of RE 5 maxed in all settings and running at 1680 x 1050 performs 65 fps and obtains "A" rank in my system, and it utterly destroys and put to shame the console versions (as in any other previous mulyiplatform game). Still, falls far away from Crysis in eyecandy, but is a superb port that worth the money is you like to stand quiet any time you shoot.

    Sadly, I hate the RE gameplay compared to fps, so I'll recomend Dead Space over this one if you like the genere. But aside from this, great tech demo. Playing it in PC at X2 res X2 framerrate X8 filters vs the consoles will worth the money for most of the players that can achieve a GTX 260 or HD 4890.
  • fknetwork #31 3 years ago

    I'll stick to console gaming thanks! PC gaming is on it's last legs as it is....
  • Buran #32 3 years ago

    @ donnie080208:

    Consoles barely can't afford nothing. 2005 F.E.A.R. PC version still looks better that F.E.A.R. 2 in consoles, and a HD 4890 barely cost 200 €/$ nowadays -less than a Wii- and can push any multi in PC at double framerrate and double resolutions than in consoles, and with higher filters and more degree of detail. Things only can be worse in comparisons in the next years, because PC hardware is always droping in price and jumping in performance. Plus you can use any controls you want in most of PC versions -and play in a couchy in front of my 46" anytime I want.
  • Buran #33 3 years ago

    ArmA II is another very high demanding -and exclusive- game in terms of resources that can take advantage of a powerful PC builded to Crysis. Also Clear Sky.
  • Katsumoto #34 3 years ago

    "...to the posters who sais you can buy a pc for $400 ready built that beats the consoles,rubbish"

    But he actually linked you one?
  • Janyamik #35 2 years ago

    Who cares so much about platform price when you buy it for gaming? You should have in mind games prices, the quality of the versión you are getting (which is not limited to 1 or 2)

    Even in Lost Planet (2 years ago and like in DMC 4 also happened too), with a simple 2 cores CPU working at 2,4-3, GHz and a gpu for gaming, you got a better versión from these 2 Capcoms´s games:
    -VSync on // ff (you choose it)
    - AA: x2, x4, x8, x16, x8Q, X16Q...
    - General & Texture Quality
    - Frame Limit (on/ff)
    - not only Dx 9 but also Dx 11. And despite of this fact, one more important and also not too much mentioned: 64 Bits version Enchanced for. (like in Lost Planet, since 2 years ago). Another 64 Bits games like this are: Crysis, ArmA (patch v.1.14) and ArmA 2, DMC 4, Lost Planet (2 both of them), GTA IV, FEAR 2, Universe at War or even Half Life 2 with Fake Factory Cinematic mod in its previous 9 version.

    1º) Do you like to have GTA San Andreas on consoles (or Max Payne) limited to a single (nowdays 2) option for resolution (640 x 480, nowdays 72op or 1080p) ? I do not like it so much.

    2º) Expensive ones, limited to retail version, without any option to see the game in an even better way (graphic mods)

    3º) When Doom 3, HL2, Far Cry, or Riddick fps games were released they can be played in PC at 1600 x 1200. (Xbox 360 was not still in the market). Now you can play at 1080p. This is the version of the game I would like to have in the future. Not consoles one.

    So for me it is a very "let´s go crazy: it is the end-of-the-word" thinking of consoles as PC substitutes. Even less in some hard PC games genres. Did we reach a graphic top tech? Still growing up! :)

    The fact is that Capcom games (at least interesting ones like Lost Planet or DMC 4, not SF remakes with online mode) nowdays best version is the PC one. (GRIN´s port of Bionic Commando apart)

    Not so dead after all: Even Square Enix is going to released -as publisher- 2 RTS games: Order of War and Supreme Commander 2.

    But if I want a wonderfull zombie evening -or night- gaming, Dead Rising is there in the Xbox 360. :)

    Do not forget about the other war: developers one. And its constant race for better quality in games: In 4,5 or 6 years, you can send the console to the tomb.

    Or still gaming in ps2 paying games like actual gen PC version. Games like Gun, Just Cause, Alone in the dark or Mercenaries 2...

    Another way to focus it is: Do I want to play more for a worse version of the game (because of royalties): Me, not.

    Max Payne 3 is going to be released (or Mafia 2): if you got PC version you can replay them but in actual resolutions.
    Why should I want to have a 720p limited version of Race Drive GRID or Operartion Flashpoint Dragon Rising?

    Maybe PS2 fanboys did not see too much material for first game. But if you know OFDRinsing is going to have an editor or SDK tool (as Crysis, L4D, COD4 & 5, ArmA 1 or 2, Oblivion, Fallout 3), then another question could be:

    Why I should choose a version without the option -as since Duke Nukem 3D happened- of using / enjoying the stuff that another game fans create? As for example in NW2 or Trackmania United Forever happens too. Or in Left 4 Dead. (in case you did not notice all the material created for HL1 and 2. Who did not see this material? Ps2 ex owners?)

    If I like games like ArmA 2, Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, DCS Black Shark or Empire Total War (and also the retrocompatibility with all this great saga tittles: still avalilable in E-Stores, some of them also in retail version) and also having the Xbox 360 is the reason why I expend more time gaming at pc platform: because of its kind of games.

    Not because it is "worse of better platform". Just beacause the quality of the games and the opened resolution version.

    @donnie080208 : Lost Planet was taking advantage of this power 2 years ago. A year ago in DMC 4. But not forget Clear Sky in Dx 10 or Cryostasis.

    Neither ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripyat, Shatered Horizons, Borderlands, Mafia 2, BBC 2, which are taking use of this power.

    Why Mass Effect was an 1080p and Mass Effect 2 is at 720p?
    Bioshock at 720p, COD4, FEAR 2, Fallout 3, Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars, Mirror´s Edge, Mafia 2, Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, Lost Planet...720p.

    Did I mentio you can play nowdays HL2 at 1200p ? Why I will choose last paragraph games version on consoles when maybe in 5 o 10 years apart from 1080p or 1200p I could buy a higher res. screen and replay them at 2560 x 1560 ?

    Or these same games and NOW, at 3.840 x 1024, 5.040 x 1.050 (Wide Screen Surounding) in case you can / like / want: The PC game version allows you to it.