-
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.
Are current PC games a full "Generational Leap" ahead of current console games?
- Thread starter LowEndTorque
- Start date
L0st Id3ntity
Member
I think Witcher 2/Battlefield 3 could be the standard looking next gen game for fps/action rpg. Heavily modded console ports can look pretty awesome on pc, too.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=APogte9jYKw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=APogte9jYKw
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
With higher res textures, higher polycounts, better physics, multiple dx11 level effects and enhancements, over-hd res, higher fov and 60+ fps, yeah, they are. That doesn't mean that's the best that level hardware can do, they're still crippled by budgets, support for lower end hardware or multiplatform intentions, etc. It doesn't even mean they'll be the best looking games to you since art means so much to one's taste. Just that the downports to console would or already have to be that much inferior all things considered with so much missing eye candy, low res, lack of physics fluff, sub par frame rates, etc. Most of it obvious in footage and in person. More or less like MW3 Wii vs 360. Having the same game and gameplay doesn't make it of the same gen in terms of hardware capabilities.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Image quality is the biggest single advantage that PC games enjoy over their console bretherin. The Witcher 2 still looks good on 360 (from what we've seen anyway). Crysis 2 looks good on consoles. BF3 still looks good on Consoles. The sort of difference we see between console and PC games is not in the same league as the mind-blowing differences we saw from past generational changes - PS to PS2, XBOX to XBOX 360. Whether the differences present qualify as a "generational leap" or not depends on the eye of the person judging it. On a purely technical level, the graphics cards, CPUs and main memory blows consoles away.
I expect that once we start seeing actual next-generation consoles, the PC side of things will pick up dramatically and start taking better advantage of the feature-set that already exists in modern gaming PCs.
I expect that once we start seeing actual next-generation consoles, the PC side of things will pick up dramatically and start taking better advantage of the feature-set that already exists in modern gaming PCs.
I'm interpreting the OP very literally -- a strict 'generational' leap. As in, a game would lose its essence in the transition to a less powerful platform. That's why I think no PC game truly qualifies as a 'generation' ahead. Metro and BF3 are already on consoles, and Witcher 2 is coming. Do these games have substantive differences across platforms? Yes. Is the absolute fundamental core experience compromised by its transition to consoles? No. Compare that to, say, taking Assassin's Creed and putting it on the PS2? I just don't see how you can draw the equivalency honestly.
I'm not denying differences exist. Obviously the hardware limits the # of players and map size, but is the core of BF3 a generation behind the PS3? As in, is a 24 man OP Metro match on PC a generation ahead of a 24 man OP Metro match on consoles? Is a 64 man OP Firestorm match on PC to a 24 man OP Firestorm match on console as Killzone 1 is to Killzone 2?
Yeah losing billions of dollars that you'll never hope to make back over the lifetime of the generation tends to be a humbling experience.
RibbedHero
Member
I'd argue yes.
What I need to do to get my Crysis 2 to look as good? I installed the pack from Crytek pack and MalDoHD mod and textures are still weak imo.
Off the top of my head I want to say Shogun 2: Total War. Individually the samurai models are pretty good in my opinion. You then times that by 1000+, make them fight it out on screen then on top of that add in little stuff. Stuff like arrows getting stuck in the ground/units, if you have the Blood Pack DLC them and the ground getting covered in blood, limbs and what not being chopped off, etc and it becomes pretty damn impressive.
So I would say Shogun 2 is a generational leap from what the consoles are able to do.
So I would say Shogun 2 is a generational leap from what the consoles are able to do.
Agreed. The larger maps on BF3 feel dead even with 32 players and it only gets worse with 24. I've played on PS3 a bit and there are huge chunks of time where nothing is happening.
LQX
Member
This statement makes no sense...then have the nerve to then say "Gears 3 is a remarkably ugly game, even for a console game"? Either you have not played the game or you're damn liar. Get your eyes checked.
IrishNinja
Member
have you seen Witcher 2 at max? that makes me lean towards yes, offhand.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Due to games being designed with consoles in mind, we don't really know what unfettered PC hardware can do outside of hints like the map size while maintaining image quality in BF3 on PC.
What will be interesting to see, is what happens to games that depend heavily on stuff like streaming worlds, AI, and physics, once the next gen of consoles raises the populist baseline for game development.
Imagine quality and textures are nice, but I feel too much of a big deal is made over them; despite some snobbish attitudes, the textures and such in better console games don't look BAD. It's just that the PC equivalent looks that much better. It is a reason why many people aren't impressed by the siren call of PC... because the games are usually (usually) not better in terms of the technology that actually makes a better game, not just pretty still shots.
What will be interesting to see, is what happens to games that depend heavily on stuff like streaming worlds, AI, and physics, once the next gen of consoles raises the populist baseline for game development.
Imagine quality and textures are nice, but I feel too much of a big deal is made over them; despite some snobbish attitudes, the textures and such in better console games don't look BAD. It's just that the PC equivalent looks that much better. It is a reason why many people aren't impressed by the siren call of PC... because the games are usually (usually) not better in terms of the technology that actually makes a better game, not just pretty still shots.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I think you're crazy or have really poor eyesight.
I set around 7 feet from my 47" television and the difference is huge. No question.
Uncharted 3 can look amazing at times, but it's also a low-res jagged mess with some really muddy textures in places and is in dire need of some anisotropic filtering.
I have my PC hooked up to the same television and, for fun, have compared friends' console copies of Skyrim (360), Saints Row the Third (360), Arkham City (PS3), Battlefield 3 (360) and a few others side by side. We'd go to the same area in both versions and then switch back and for between inputs, and there's no confusing which is which. The PC versions of all of those games running at max settings, 1920x1080 and a bit of anti-aliasing makes such a huge difference.
It's so massive that I can't help but think anyone who claims otherwise has never actually seen the difference, or has incredibly poor eyesight.
L0st Id3ntity
Member
Look for blackfire/quality mod/particles/asphalt texture.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
With museman logic current consoles aren't a generation ahead of the last as gta3 is close to 4 in all but graphics and some design decisions and mgs3 is close to 4 and gow3 is close to 2 and uncharted is close to tomb raider and skyrim is close to morrowind and re5 is close to 4 and cod2 is close to mw3 etc. Assassin's Creed could have indeed been done in a gta3-like engine, or like the spiderman games. There are always points that allow for more pronounced differences, such as the leap to 3d, that doesn't mean there weren't generational leaps be4 and after because you can get similar or identical gameplay in either when it's designed that way. Hell bf1942 or 2 and 2142 are a lot like 3. Duh, they have a fanbase to please. That doesn't make 3 as is possible on the same hardware hence the huge gap in the downports which you wanna downplay.
Nope.
If you play the same game at your 1080p TV on PC and PS360, sitting 8 feet away (as i play every game), the difference is just not there. The only people who would brag about it would be PC gamers playing both on a desk, on their monitor. Nobody but hardcore PC fans play games on their desks, which is why their comments on graphics-related threads are always so baffling.
If you play the same game at your 1080p TV on PC and PS360, sitting 8 feet away (as i play every game), the difference is just not there. The only people who would brag about it would be PC gamers playing both on a desk, on their monitor. Nobody but hardcore PC fans play games on their desks, which is why their comments on graphics-related threads are always so baffling.
I'd have to disagree.
The posts below get across my general sentiment.
Substantive differences (especially with BF3) but not generational.
I find it hard to believe you've done this given the amount of tears I see you spill in threads about PC gaming.
1080p is far beyond 720p no matter where you sit. Anyone who says otherwise has never seen a proper comparison or is lying to make themselves feel better about whatever console they've dedicated themselves to.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Dynamic lighting mang.
It depends entirely on the distance of your screen vs. your viewing distance. If you're viewing 1080p from 10+ feet away on a 50" screen, yeah it might not make a big difference. If you're sitting ~5-6 feet away, it's going to make an enormous difference.
I sit about 2.5' away from a 32" screen, so 1080p is incredibly beneficial. 1440p would be even nicer, though I can't quite justify the expense for such a display yet (nor the rendering performance cost).
aside from the lower resolution on consoles ...the biggest thing that hurts them is the 30 frames per second ...or, in most cases, less.
the movement is pretty bad at that framerate versus 60fps or higher.
that's probably the thing that bugs me the most with consoles is that you don't get that nice fuild movement that you can get on PC.
oh, and most console games have a ton of screen tearing ...i hate that, too. the ability to turn on vsync for every PC game is another huge advantage, imo.
the movement is pretty bad at that framerate versus 60fps or higher.
that's probably the thing that bugs me the most with consoles is that you don't get that nice fuild movement that you can get on PC.
oh, and most console games have a ton of screen tearing ...i hate that, too. the ability to turn on vsync for every PC game is another huge advantage, imo.
IrishNinja
Member
TheExodu5's rebuttal has been my highlight this thread.
I sit 8.5ft away from my 42" screen and can easily see the difference. Bumping the res down to 720p is like applying a blurry filter over everything.
Most games don't look like it to me, but the hardware is certainly that far ahead. And like others have said, when a dev goes all in on taking advantage of PC hardware then it does feel like a generational leap.
I don't personally game on a PC, but I've watched a friend play The Witcher 2 maxed out and my jaw was stuck to the floor.
I don't personally game on a PC, but I've watched a friend play The Witcher 2 maxed out and my jaw was stuck to the floor.
I did say might.
Depends entirely on your eyesight and how sensitive you are to these kinds of things.
LQX
Member
Gears 2 looked better, even. The aliasing is really bad, and essentially outweighs any updates they made to the lighting engine.
Now post a scan of the polygraph test showing you are not a liar and also a scan of your eye exam test. Gears 3 is one of the best looking games to date. You posting a picture of the box does not disprove this.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
you guys posting pics of bf3 and witcher 2 are proving the op's point.
ps i play bf3 on my pc
ps i play bf3 on my pc
I do believe having poor eyesight would make this game look better since the aliasing is so awful.
I did get 20/10 on my driving exam at 16 years of age. I don't think I'm quite 20/10 still, but my eyesight is not in question.
You got me though. I'm just lying. I think Gears 3 is the jaggiest, juiciest, and brownest looking game ever made, and I just love that.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
you guys posting pics of bf3 and witcher 2 are proving the op's point.
ps i play bf3 on my pc
Who is doing that?
All I see are two screenshots of Crysis 2, one of Mirror's Edge, and a photo of Exodu5's Gears 3 box.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
If you either have atrocious vision, sit way too far from your TV or want to just live in denial about the difference between 30 and 60 fps and 720p and 1080p+, then no they are not.
It's actually a BF3 screenshot of a Gears 3 box.
Johnny2Bags
Member
The Textures alone in the Witcher 2 would crush an Xbox or Ps3... The amount of love and detail in that game... just is unending...
You are impressed at first checking out the screen shot... then you are impressed more when you play it on a plasma screen in real time...
then you take the time to look further, at every damn detail and EVERY SINGLE ONE is absolutely stunning... every fucking rain drop and every distant pool of water in a swamp has proper reflections and motion...
You are impressed at first checking out the screen shot... then you are impressed more when you play it on a plasma screen in real time...
then you take the time to look further, at every damn detail and EVERY SINGLE ONE is absolutely stunning... every fucking rain drop and every distant pool of water in a swamp has proper reflections and motion...
IrishNinja
Member
gonna need pictures of you with your ophthalmologist, both showing 2 forms of government ID please