The launch games are more further along compared to last gen.
-
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
The launch games are more further along compared to last gen.
Madden next gen will be a screengrab from an NFL game, and people on this forum will say it looks like shit.
I'm not believing anything I see or hear from Sony pre-release ever again lol.
Thrillhouse
Member
About the skyrim shots, anything will look good if you slap that much blur on it, hiding all shortcommings.
On topic, it all depends on how you judge graphics. PC will always have higher, res, more AA, better framerate, etc, etc and consoles will always cut corners. That said, to the genreal public console-games still look comparable to PC-realeses, since most people don't really notice improvements like that. It's like an Iphone camera versus a SLR. For the lions share of graphical improvements PC and console follow each other quite closely, except in IQ. Therefor i think that next gen console-games will look more impressive, to most people, than current high end PC-games.
On topic, it all depends on how you judge graphics. PC will always have higher, res, more AA, better framerate, etc, etc and consoles will always cut corners. That said, to the genreal public console-games still look comparable to PC-realeses, since most people don't really notice improvements like that. It's like an Iphone camera versus a SLR. For the lions share of graphical improvements PC and console follow each other quite closely, except in IQ. Therefor i think that next gen console-games will look more impressive, to most people, than current high end PC-games.
childplease
Banned
I very much expect a high end 2010 pc to easily surpass the visuals of the next playstation and xbox.
The specs will be modest at best.
The specs will be modest at best.
ashbash159
Member
What are people expecting from the next-generation consoles from Microsoft and Sony?
What modern PC specifications are likely to be inside these consoles?
Honestly I have no idea.
If they include current high end PC components, I don't see how they could be affordable to most current console-only gamers.
What modern PC specifications are likely to be inside these consoles?
Honestly I have no idea.
If they include current high end PC components, I don't see how they could be affordable to most current console-only gamers.
Things like physics glitches are going to be hilarious when we hit that level of photorealism.
Your definition of a substitute is nonsensical then, unless you think having an Xbox360 and no computer is a good decision. Just about everyone else disagree's. Consoles are the luxury item, and some sort of more general purpose computing device is a modern cultural requirement.
Backfoggen
Banned
I hope people won't fall for that again, although people fell for the panorama Wii U demo which just showed some pre-recorded footage of a city.
Where do you have that 25% from? At the start of a console cycle that may be the case (okay, we are talking just about that), but I would imagine that the boost in later stages of the lifecycle could be significantly larger (at least for 1st party games). Just look at Uncharted, God of War III, Halo 4... I think with just a 25% boost that wouldn´t be possbile with 7 year old hardware.
And 7 years after the new consoles launch, PCs will be even more powerful than consoles. Its a catch 22.
Of course, haven´t doubted that. I was just curious about the 25%
Did Ubisoft ever say what sort of PC this was running on? Really want to build one soon, but I don't want to come in too weak for all games like this coming out in the next year or so.Too late:/ Ubisoft is already on it.
If you build a PC just below Crysis 3 req, you should be fine for a few years.
I guess it has something to do with console players seeing PC gamers preach about their superior graphics and clicking on the "Game X PC performance" thread, that is nothing but tweaking values and troubleshooting issues that come up when trying to get the last 1% out of your machine. They think "oh shit this dude is asking for help on GAF about running skyrim? must be super complicated, fuck this shit" and thus not realizing that even without tinkering games look superior on a PC.
Business
Member
You take it to the extreme to make seem these points ridiculous but to an extent you better believe they are real.
They look superior to be sure, but without that tinkering and without a $900ish PC games aren't going to look even half as good as they do in those screenshot threads.
I wasn't saying a substitute for the productivity area of a computer, I expected that to be obvious. Just the gaming part. Most people will have a laptop for word processing/browsing/etc.
The 25% was pulled directly from his ass, but the sentiment isn't entirely wrong either. You should go look up videos of what games look like on a Radeon 1900 and a dual core Athlon64. Consoles being way beyond what comparable PC hardware does is a popular myth, not grounded in reality.
Dictator93
Member
with that machine you could play lost planet 1 on higher quality settings than the xbox version. YEP
From developers on Beyond3D board like Sebbbi. And You know that 8800GT still runs most multiplatform games better than consoles, right?
Just because games look better down the line, doesnt mean they get more power from consoles, that means that they develop better algorithms and that works for PC development too.
I'm pretty sure that Carmack also talked about performance benefits when You dont have API overhead when he was talking about RAGE and megatexture tech.
Go and read some tech boards. And I dunno how can You compare dual core Athlon64 to Xenos or CELL really. Thats the thing, new consoles wont have jump like this gen had with 8 cores or 3c/6t processors jump compared 2 core ones, that just wont happen. Same goes for GPUs or memory speed.
Also overhead in DX11 is much smaller than it was in DX9.
Start to think people, really. There is no magic here, everything has logical explanation.
It isn't about performance boost, it's about predictability. In a console you know all units have exactly the same GPU so it's possible to tune specific details of the game (textures, geometry, shaders, etc) for that specific hardware at that specific resolution. The developer knows exactly how much time is spent in each step of the rendering process and can decide where trade offs need to be made to achieve the desired visuals and performance. This is the same reason why tablet games can look so good while having netbook-class hardware: the cuts are made in the right places.
You can also see this in some arcade games made on Pc-based hardware: even if those games are running on Windows, they were designed for a specific GPU and thus can make most out of that particular model.
I might be wrong here, but my recollection is that PC people are usually like, 'the new console games will never look as good as my high-end PC games' and then the new consoles come out and they look way better. Did anything look remotely as good as Gears of War on PC when it came out? I think Crysis was the first clearly better looking game, a year later.
And it's frankly kind of unsurprising, when you think about it, because most 'high-end PC games' are console ports.
And it's frankly kind of unsurprising, when you think about it, because most 'high-end PC games' are console ports.
sure, but that delta was massive in the early days (SNES, PSone etc), but has slowly been diminishing. The suggestion is that next gen the architectures will be so similar to current PCs that there will be little or no difference.
Still not sure whether custom architecture might help (eg lots of edram for high bandwidth, combining multiple chips onto one die), or maybe they'll just help mitigate for weaknesses elsewhere (eg edram just helps cover up slower main ram - PC GPUs don't have edram but all their ram is fast GDDR5 so they don't really need it)
And how is this relevant to the discussion? Its the same as PC players get access to ini and tweak game for their needs or set options in menu or just brute force that bottleneck with that 20-25% more power. The discussion was about same multiplatform title and similar specs and in the end You will need max 25% more performance to get same results on PC in the same settings.
While that's true it's more of a happy accident for Microsoft than anything related to developing for different platforms. They managed to get the very first game made on an engine that could take advantage of at the time modern hardware as an exclusive. If there was a multiplatform game along the same development scheduled as Gears of War was then the consoles would have been running games worse since their launch. That's an accident that doesn't look to be repeated given all we've heard about developers gearing up for the next generation.
Even my old-ass 8600GT bought in early 2007 at less than 100€ (this is, an entry level gaming card) can still play most console ports at console quality (720p, 30 fps, low preset) just fine so there you have it. Build a $700 PC with a mid range video card (~$200) right now, point and laugh at consoles until they're EOL and you have to limit yourself to console quality. You're welcome.
Sentenza
Member
Not this crap again.
And yes, more than one game, actually.
In fact I wasn't even impressed with GoW at all when it came to PC few months later... And that was the best looking version of the game.
its pertinent because we don't yet know how much more power a 'normal' gaming PC will have when next gen is out.
You might need 25% more grunt to get through a driver overhead, but then more power to run at your desired resolution, framerate, AA settings etc.
That can add up very quickly
Yes, but thats not a point. It was about 1:1 comparison.
Of course higher res, AA, shader mode, post processing, framerate etc will decrease performance and will require higher specs.
I see. I think it's probably more to do with economics than 'happy accidents', though.
angular graphics
Banned
How about.. Gears of War PC version?
Released on Xbox 360: November 7, 2006
GeForce 8800 GTX released on: Novermber 8, 2006
So, let's see. If MS hadn't coughed up money to keep it as an exclusive for a year and the PC version was released day and date with the 360 version, high end PC hardware would be running the title on:
- higher quality settings, especially texture resolution
- dx10
- 2x times higher resolution
- 2x times higher AA
- higher AF
- at least 1.36x times higher average framerate
Can you dig up how expensive was 8800 GTX when it was released?
8800 GT came out 27 Nov and cost 200$, GTX cost 600$.
8800GT runs Mass Effect 3 in 1080p in 30fps on max settings.
Crysis 2 Gamer/High settings [so lowest, but still higher than consoles]
Completely irrelevant.
I'd say you're probably wrong TBH. There were plenty of games on PC that looked better than Gears on PC not least Gears itself!
Since PC's gained proper graphics cards if you remove cost (as in OP) then really since just after PS2 launch consoles have always lagged in technical ability. They may get more games pushing the tech - although even that is debatable I'd say as certain PC games since Quake/Unreal days have tended to push the tech hard.
Look at Oblivion at launch - looked lovely on 360 and much lovelier on my PC.
Again with no cost element then there will always be high end PCs around with more grunt than consoles.
The real question (which I think the OP misses) is whether at launch of next consoles the cost/market base status will be such that the consoles look better vs the average gaming rig at that time for a while? That's what will determine how most view the result.
There will always be some top end PCs that are the equivalent of F1 car to a consoles mass market car - so as per the OP without cost the answer is pretty obvious and there will always be a small subset of PCs around that are way more powerful and provided developers go the extra mile they will outperform the consoles right at launch.
Almost every game that's being released on multiple platforms next year is being released on PC as well. What makes people think that all of a sudden next gen games are going to look better on these new consoles when they will be released alongside PC versions as well. You think developers are just going to stop making games for PC too? Also, with Maxwell being released in 2014 do people really think that hardware from 2012 that Sony and Microsoft are trying to amass from a company that got a contract because they were the lowest bidder is going to beat that? This isn't 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005.
Third party developers are not going to all of a sudden stop making PC games when, from the looks of it so far, PCs will be the lead platform for every multiplatform game that's released due to every platform sharing the same architecture.
Do people think that AMD is going to spend all that time in R&D to try and design unique top secret architectures for two different consoles?
I'm sorry, but these new small form factor PCs being released by Sony and MS are not going to beat out Mid to High-end gaming computers that are currently out now. And to say that they will trump what a GTX670/680 or AMD7950/7970 can do is ludicrous. It's definitely not the same playing field that it was in 2005.
Third party developers are not going to all of a sudden stop making PC games when, from the looks of it so far, PCs will be the lead platform for every multiplatform game that's released due to every platform sharing the same architecture.
Do people think that AMD is going to spend all that time in R&D to try and design unique top secret architectures for two different consoles?
I'm sorry, but these new small form factor PCs being released by Sony and MS are not going to beat out Mid to High-end gaming computers that are currently out now. And to say that they will trump what a GTX670/680 or AMD7950/7970 can do is ludicrous. It's definitely not the same playing field that it was in 2005.
Sentenza
Member
Well, pretty much this, plus the "Steambox incognita" in the mix.
Wiktor
Member
The launch multiplats..ie Quake 4, FEAR and Prey all looked vastly inferior on 360 compared to PC
Fear was actually well done on 360. A mix between medium and high and 30fps with HDR.
Fear on PS3 was jacked up.
Not sure which games will come for PC or not but For most developers consoles sales are still the biggest priority through out the gen , its just that the consoles are getting stagnant and people are buying less games and several mid tier developers are not getting sales as compared to big developers is the reason why several developers are releasing games on PC for getting some more revenue to make up from the lost console sales and regarding your other points your wrong on several fronts.
Though yes their is a PC market thanks to steam and most likely will recieve games but most will be delayed might be due to Piracy.
Other bolded points
720 will most likely be the lead platform.
And regarding your last point The GPU might as well be one of the names you have mentioned.
I dont know how it compared but PC is genreally such a vague term. The PC can be high end , mid end , low end, an average gaming PC most likely will have much lowers that time as well compared to PC
OK, how?
I've been using downsampling on my setup for a while now but I have never been able to make 3840 × 2160 actually work. It simply won't accept it. What's the trick?
PDZ definitely looks much nicer than Chaos Theory and is performing some impressive operations. Parallax textures, fully dynamic shadows, per-object motion blur (one of the first examples ever), etc. It has a pretty nasty art style and some performance issues but it was clearly a massive leap over Chaos Theory.
I also had dual Voodoo 2 cards and, no, it did not "trounce" the Dreamcast at launch.
Of course, back then, it was hard to make direct comparisons as the types of games were very different. The Dreamcast was limited by its total amount of memory, but the graphics capabilities were impressive for its day.
It did, though. The Dreamcast was more capable hardware. The Model 3 couldn't handle transparency and ran all games are a lower resolution (496x384). The Dreamcast was doing 640x480.
Some of the early ports (Sega Rally 2) were shit simply due to HOW they were ported...not because of a hardware limitation.
And that, my friends is the point. People expecting a heavily customized, secret voodoo infused console to get released next year are kidding themselves. I'm expecting 1080p/30fps with basic DX11 effects at most at least in the beginning. And that's being optimistic. I haven't upgraded in a year and a half and I'm already playing at higher specs.
The Next Gen Consoles are getting a really good bump as well.
...and it has NEVER been like this.
What I expect in time is graphic detail far in excess of what the specs would imply were possible. This will provide a nice push for PC games as well.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
MS has a history of tossing in relatively new tech on their end. Well generally bolting new functionality onto a slightly stripped part.
I have a feeling that is going to amount to some DX12 functionality achieved through dedicated transistors, more than the parts intended power, but with compromises in other ways.
But the big plus is that developers will have a new standard to shoot for (since the majority of dev dollars go into console development in this era) so we will still see some truly impressive crafts. Consoles are rarely cutting edge. In a brute force sense they are almost always behind in some ways. This era is just going to be worse. They're dealing with TDP limitations PC's don't have to focus on.
They'll raise the bar higher, but they won't be cutting edge in the same way again.
I doubt you'll see 200W and 270W TDP beasts from either MS or Sony..
Actually, you won't.