And possibly off the shelf x86 CPUs as well. There REALLY wouldn't be an excuse in that case.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reality of console visuals surpassing PC visual fidelity
- Thread starter Resilient
- Start date
And possibly off the shelf x86 CPUs as well. There REALLY wouldn't be an excuse in that case.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
You don't think these kinds of comparisons should be cost adjusted?
The more practical question is "will the new consoles at least temporarily surpass PC visuals at the same (or lower) price point." Of course you can build the very best PC possible and it will probably be better than new consoles right from the start. But it will cost substantially more, won't it?
They won't perform better...
But I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a couple games been shown where there hasn't been an equal or better shown on PC to date.
Like Gran Turismo 5 and Uncharted was around the time of the unveilings.
But that's largely a factor of development resources then machine power.
But I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a couple games been shown where there hasn't been an equal or better shown on PC to date.
Like Gran Turismo 5 and Uncharted was around the time of the unveilings.
But that's largely a factor of development resources then machine power.
Wish they focused more on seamlessness and believability. It's small things like eliminating clipping, geometry pop in, texture fade in, loading screens when entering buildings, and smoothing out janky npc behavior do better for immersing me in the experience than throwing every effect in the book at me.
You need hardware that buttfucks consoles several times over to run PC ports decently. So, good luck with that. I foresee people with 680s crying when PS4 ports arrive.
Dark Octave
Banned
Is this you guy's first rodeo?
Consoles will be better at first but it won't take long for the average PC to open back up.
Consoles will be better at first but it won't take long for the average PC to open back up.
TouchMyBox
Member
Why would console games look better than their PC versions?
Perhaps new consoles will be more powerful than the average PC at launch, but in that case you could just start adding videocards for dual or tri sli/crossfire. The only way a game will look better on consoles is if we are talking about a crap PC port.
Perhaps new consoles will be more powerful than the average PC at launch, but in that case you could just start adding videocards for dual or tri sli/crossfire. The only way a game will look better on consoles is if we are talking about a crap PC port.
I agree, I too hope that the new consoles will blow away anything we've seen on the pc but somehow my faith in that is waning.
I thought it was the software we were interested in? A quad 780 setup will certainly be more powerful than anything in the consoles but if the games aren't up to snuff then it doesn't matter how much blood we're trying to squeeze out of the stone.
Slippery slope, I've seen so many bad / weird ports this gen that I wouldn't be surprised if devs couldn't be arsed and/or afford to make decent pc ports the first year or two of the consoles' release.
Yeap, what he said. Missed it by one minute but yeah I can't come to grip with how bad some ports have been considering the power at hand.
Really my biggest fear, but I'm hoping the move to more standardized components and architectures means it'll be harder to fuck up the transition.
YianGaruga
Banned
Probably $1000/ 1000.
If we're talking about the BEST thing that money can buy, there isn't even a discussion here.
You can build a PC with 2 690s right now, which will blow the next gen consoles away so hard it's not even funny.
It's not possible. What do you think consoles are made from? They are just pre-built PCs with
1. Price limitations
2. Power limitations
3. Size limitations
There is no conceivable way that a manufacturer could make something so powerful that no PC can beat, unless they manage to dramatically revolutionize processors as we know it and can manage to keep it exclusive. The kind of risk, R&D and manufacturing costs required pretty much eliminate the chance of that, so they will continue modifying efficiently moderately priced PC hardware.
1. Price limitations
2. Power limitations
3. Size limitations
There is no conceivable way that a manufacturer could make something so powerful that no PC can beat, unless they manage to dramatically revolutionize processors as we know it and can manage to keep it exclusive. The kind of risk, R&D and manufacturing costs required pretty much eliminate the chance of that, so they will continue modifying efficiently moderately priced PC hardware.
With how far PCs have come, not a chance in hell.
Not saying we won't have games later that look better than the best now. We just won't see the fidelity surpass what we'll see on PCs.
I'm not too sure. Unreal came out in 1998 and I don't recall anything at the DC or PS2 launch that looked better. My memory could be off though.
Not saying we won't have games later that look better than the best now. We just won't see the fidelity surpass what we'll see on PCs.
I'm not too sure. Unreal came out in 1998 and I don't recall anything at the DC or PS2 launch that looked better. My memory could be off though.
High end PCs will always be ahead of consoles so long as consoles are intended to be the affordable option - the Ferrari to the consoles Ford as it were.
Now whether we see games on PC (beyond mere resolution hikes) that look way better than PS4/720 then who knows? But the capability to outperform consoles will always be there if the current console to PC affordability angle remains roughly the same.
Now whether we see games on PC (beyond mere resolution hikes) that look way better than PS4/720 then who knows? But the capability to outperform consoles will always be there if the current console to PC affordability angle remains roughly the same.
Glass Rebel
Member
I'm pretty sure some console games will come close to the best PCs can deliver.
But with an IQ that will make you believe Kutaragi himself took a huge dump on your TV.
But with an IQ that will make you believe Kutaragi himself took a huge dump on your TV.
That wasn't the case in the past which is why we're hoping for this to happen once again (it likely won't, though).
SLI is fucking terrible, though. I wouldn't use it if you paid me.
Your memory is WAY off.
The amount of geometric detail and effects (depth of field and motion blur being new) in early PS2 games far outstripped anything on the PC. High-end PS2 games also routinely delivered 60 fps. That Metal Gear Solid 2 demo released in March 2001 blew away anything on any other machine.
The ONLY advantage PCs had at the time was screen resolution.
memecomplex
Member
What amazes me is that at one period in time it was possible for consoles to beat PCs in visual fidelity, but I just don't see that happening ever again.
doniewhalberg
Member
Well I finished up high school and went off to college right as the last set of consoles came out, and ignored gaming til around the end of 07 when I got a PS3. The set before that, I was I guess 11/12 or something? So even as a 25 year old, this is the first time I've ever paid attention/experienced the cycle of rumours etc. It's an exciting thing.
YianGaruga
Banned
That's a good point. If you take a really well optimized PC game right now, turn up the shaders and bells and whistles to the max, but run it at 720p without any AA, you're pretty close to what I expect next-gen games will look like.
Again, I'm as cynical as they come and I really don't think we will see anything close to a ps2-ps3 jump in visual fidelity BUT imagine what devs can do with the, by now very old, hardware in current gen systems? I know it's a cliche to bring up uncharted 2 but damn if that game doesn't look ( and relatively speaking : perform ) great on the ps3. Imagine a console that would have the same "jump" from ps3 to ps4...
Wishful thinking? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Power consumption of modern GPUs means this is definitely the case.
Honestly, I feel like people would be better off looking laptop components for next-gen consoles than desktop components.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Stationary objects can't pass objects in motion.
Same applies to technology. At the start of the generation they "might" be ahead, but as with all technology it can't and won't keep pace with something that's always improving.
Same applies to technology. At the start of the generation they "might" be ahead, but as with all technology it can't and won't keep pace with something that's always improving.
remember the last time a console launched at a MSRP of $599 dollars? what gamers had to say about it?
yeah...
PC will remain far and away ahead of consoles, no question about it.
memecomplex
Member
Nah man SLI is amazeballs now.
Glass Rebel
Member
Don't forget to cap the framerate at 30fps.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Power Stone was more visually impressive IMO.
YianGaruga
Banned
Fixed that for you.
I REALLY hope though that I'll be pleasantly surprised and that IQ and stable framerate will have higher priotity next-gen.
The latest PS3/360 games are emberassing in that regard.
doniewhalberg
Member
SO are we saying consoles will at least impress untilll I guess Maxwell comes out? And then the debate will end again will whatever comes next.
Again, I'm not sure that "rule" was consistent with each generation. I honestly don't recall the PlayStation or N64 outdoing the PC in any way shape or form at launch. Same for the SNES/Genesis.
Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Gamcube and Xbox were the first time (barring resolution) that I can remember consoles offering games that didn't quite have a match on the PC. Soul Caliber, Tekken Tag, Rogue Squadron, Dead or Alive 3 were absolute show stoppers.
This is given, I'm talking about the launch window of console games compared to high end PCs at the time. So far a few people think they'll surpass but majority don't see it happening.
Dark my main man, when is the last time you used SLI? It's far from perfect, but it is perfectly useable on just about all major releases and with some tweaks, can work with older stuff.
SLI is the only way to get 60fps at my resolution, 2560x1600 and I haven't had any problems. 580 SLI setup, and a 690.
Nope, needs to be in the low 20's because its "cinematic"
MrCunningham
Member
Maybe the next gen consoles will give the PC's available at that point in time a run for their money. But unless console makers plan on changing their game plans to releasing a new game system every once a year, consoles will never match the performance of their higher end PC counterparts.
Glass Rebel
Member
I didn't want to make it sound that bad. I agree though, I couldn't care less about any graphical upgrades if they could nail a good IQ and framerate.
flyinpiranha
Member
I figured I would discuss what the OP is asking, graphic fidelity. If money comes into the picture then it's a whole different story because 1) we don't know the price of the new consoles and 2) we don't know what type of pricing structure middle ground PC parts will have when a new console life comes into play.
I understand that price is always going to be a factor but for the sake of a discussion about graphics? I don't see where it comes into play.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Which is generally good.
Because even minor variation in hardware can have disastrous results.
PC gamers are currently enjoying console ports that aren't severely taxing their rigs. With the wave of new Direct X11 only games... That will surely change.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Depends on your definition of "surpassing." My definition means in all aspects the console version of a game is better
Resolution
effects
resolution of said effects
aliasing
Texture quality
Texture resolution
If it loses in any comparable setting then, it has not surpassed.
I hope this zero scalabilty will force people into 1080p 60FPSs.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Eh, with how many of the "money games" are multiplatform these days the PC will get them and looking better still. Maybe not as much better as a theoretical "money games" that are exclusive to PC fully taking advantage of them for things more than IQ but still better with the right hardware in terms of IQ and frame rate much like this gen, which depending on the game can be enough.
I'm definitely waiting on my next upgrade to make my new rig on par with the new consoles and last a while but people who spend more money than me on parts (and not necessarily more money than console gaming considering game prices) could probably build such a rig right now and also upgrade a year from now to something even better.
Although I'm sure some ports may not run as well on PC that's down to the dev and I'm sure things will improve over time as PC support from the big console centric publishers and studios has improved a lot the last generation and there's no reason for it to be reduced just because of new consoles since there's good money to be made, even if not good enough for exclusives (the latter isn't true for consoles either outside specific cases which also exist on PC).
But yeah if people expect this to be like the PS1 era where 3D hardware on PC was primitive by comparison (for a while) it's not gonna happen and they'll be seriously disappointed. It's like arcade machines, nobody goes to that custom extent anymore and arcades aren't pushing the best graphics around but instead run on mid range PCs. The cost of so customized hardware isn't worth it anymore when general purpose technology you can tweak to suit your needs is enough.
Well it depends on the game really. I imagine most western 3rd party games that launch with next gen systems will have PC versions. But because consoles are the baseline lead for development these days, the PC ports will probably look the same, just with higher resolutions and/or framerates. Right now the question is whether or not you'll be able to do that on a current mid-range PC or if you'll need something like a GTX 680.
Of all the "next gen" graphics we've seen so far, only Star Wars 1313 seems to have still required some kind of custom chimera of a system, and even that was on a build that's months old by now. The Samaritan can run on a single 680 (a $500 high-end 2012 card), Agni's Philosophy ran on a single 680 and apparently won't even need that beefy a processor. In my opinion Watch_Dogs looks very achievable on even a current mid-range system.
Of all the "next gen" graphics we've seen so far, only Star Wars 1313 seems to have still required some kind of custom chimera of a system, and even that was on a build that's months old by now. The Samaritan can run on a single 680 (a $500 high-end 2012 card), Agni's Philosophy ran on a single 680 and apparently won't even need that beefy a processor. In my opinion Watch_Dogs looks very achievable on even a current mid-range system.
Business
Member
I'd expect PS4 and 720 to deliver much better results than what's currently on PC. Yes high end PC's will still have a ton more horsepower but I don't think they will be able to catch up with nextgen consoles at launch and probably for some more time. My PC is several times more powerful (and expensive) than my PS3 yet the difference you get there is no way a PS2 PS3 difference, it's the same stuff with more resolution, framerate and image quality. I expect this and something else from nextgen consoles.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The consoles will be vastly inferior, technically, but don't be surprised if the early games get no PC release, or the ones that do run like crap on top of the range gear that smokes the consoles on paper.
I just tried this shit with another 580 a few months ago. It's improved for sure but it still doesn't produce the kind of 60 fps I expect. It looked 'off' to my eyes and I yanked it out quickly. The numbers it produced were awesome, but it just didn't deliver the fluidity I wanted.
Sure they did.
The SNES and Genesis absolutely smoked the PC when it came to tile based 2D games. Those systems could render loads of parallax layers and plenty of sprites at a smooth 60 fps back then. PC platformers from that era (right up until 1994 and 1995) struggled to deliver performance that fast as a result of how PCs handled 2D content. This is also why some systems (like the 3DO) failed to match those older consoles at 2d performance.
Now, the PC obviously had more memory and better processors capable of delivering things like Doom but they were massively outclassed when it came to high performance 2D.
When PSX and Saturn came around I would argue they were also quite superior. They too could deliver perfect 2D visuals but, more importantly, they were able to push polygons around at a smooth framerate. A lot of PSX to PC ports required very high-end PCs at the time and even then often suffered. This was all before 3D cards, of course.
Then we had Nintendo 64 which introduced actual texture filtering and other features common to 3D cards. When N64 first launched, there wasn't anything on the PC that could match it. That changed pretty quickly, though, when 3DFX took off (earlier 3D cards were much slower outside of, perhaps, the Rendition cards). PCs caught up quickly during this generation but consoles definitely lead the way.
The PS2 generation is where things really flipped in favor of consoles for quite a while. It wasn't until 2003 or so that PCs finally started to exceed consoles again.
With 360 and PS3 I'd say they weren't too far ahead of PCs at time of launch and were surpassed quickly. That'll probably happen again this time around.
Yeah, I don't expect people will be pushing 60 fps at higher than 1080p resolution with SGSSAA with UE4 titles.
What will make it seem as if consoles have an advantage is the change in the way games are developed. As it stands, most games are still targeted for PS3/360 and so the PC has little difficulty delivering smoother, cleaner versions of those games. If the game development fundamentally changes and targets a new hardware spec things will change.