Yes, of course they have, and that usually is the case too. But my point was consoles are not the inherent cause of crippling a game's graphical development, which is what Astyanax seemed to be implying. Typically, games are developed up to the point of the weakest system capable of running it, but that doesn't always happen and there are plenty of times games ported from consoles ended up being graphically better on PC. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. I don't disagree with any of that, but I don't see how that's related to what I was talking about. To me, it seems like you think I find PCs aren't that much more capable than consoles, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. When I say that consoles aren't restricting games ported to PC from having improved graphics (such as high-detail textures or shadows), I'm not saying "PC hardware is also pushed to its limits", but rather "being a game designed for consoles first doesn't mean it can't/won't be visually improved for PC". There are several current-gen games on consoles that are distinctly improved on PC, when it comes to things you mentioned like 4K-capable textures and better shadows. I agree with all of that too. I find it weird you claim to disagree with me when hardly anything you're saying seems to be disagreeable to me. I think your disagreement with me is due to a misunderstanding.