TheTurbanMan1389: I could name other PC exclusives for you that surpassed consoles for the time, such as Unreal Tournament 2004, or FarCry. Doom 3 (non-BFG), though technically not exclusive, did fully demonstrate the technology that was possible with PCs at the time, but not possible on consoles at the time (Xbox, PS2, Gamecube). All that is really pointless though because judging by the fact that you say 99.999% of PC exclusive games don't look much better than consoles, it just seems to me you see graphics differently than I do, and that's cool. It doesn't change the fact that developers ARE capable of creating greater graphics on PC than consoles (Crysis proves that. If technology was moving faster than the developers, why did Crysis kick the pants of almost every computer at the time?). They sometimes choose not to because it's not always cost effective, and/or not always necessary for the goals they try to accomplish when making their game.

And I'm just curious, how are you comparing The Witcher 2 with Uncharted 2? Those are two very different settings (medieval vs. modern day). It's like saying "This apple is not that much better looking than this banana."

Ruzlok: So instead of playing games on your PC on low settings, you decide to play them on inferior console hardware so you don't have to deal with the option of low settings? You're right, I don't understand you. So what exactly is stopping the games from being made? Still nothing. Some games are made specifically for consoles and nothing is stopping people from picking up a console. And seriously, pc hardware is not that expensive. A $100 graphics card is not only cheaper, but it's usually all you need to upgrade a PC with in order to get it to run any game on max settings. Seems like your perspective on the industry is a decade out of date.