Support NeoGAF

[demolitio]

Metro 2033 is missing from this thread. It might not be a generational leap, but it's a HUGE improvement on PC and one of the best looking games for what it does. It might not have large areas and little loading, but it looks amazing overall.

Like I said earlier though, it's hard to say a generational leap unless huge developers spend a significant amount of time on the PC version without worrying about the consoles first. Hardware wise, it's a generation ahead, but it's not in terms of most games due to the studios' focus elsewhere. But take a look at a game like Shogun 2: Total War, and the size and scale of that game is definitely unrivaled. It's just insane and it's new expansion is even better.

 

[Corky]

Metro 2033 is missing from this thread. It might not be a generational leap, but it's a HUGE improvement on PC and one of the best looking games for what it does. It might not have large areas and little loading, but it looks amazing overall.

I agree I really like the look of metro, can't wait for the sequel...

 

[eso76]

I take it you're a 'glass is half-full' kinda guy.

i take it his glass is all empty but had some good stuff in it

What I sometimes wonder is how modders are capable of transforming the visual boundaries of certain games (eg: Skyrim, Crysis, GTA) and yet the original developers never seem iterate on those visual quality.

This is what the whole thread is about; like i always said, contrary to what one would expect, you're more likely to see mods and indie games taking full advantage of the latest PC tech.

Modders and indipendent developers don't have to worry about development costs vs userbase. They don't care if older system won't be able to run the game, they don't care to spend time working on textures only the latest cards will be able to display; they just aim for the best.

In a nutshell, this is exactly why most PC games are not a full generation ahead of consoles and why most people trying to prove otherwise are posting pics of modded GTA4 and Crysis.

 

[LowEndTorque]

To be honest, not really. I prefer PC gaming so much to console gaming, that I actually go months without turning on my PS3, but graphically, I really haven't been that impressed with what has been released on PC. Battlefield 3 is one of the few that takes advantage of the PC. With the exception of a few titles, I actually prefer the look of many PS3 games. This has nothing to do with the power difference between consoles and PCs. PCs are leagues more powerful. The problem is most games are coded with consoles in mind and are tossed onto PC with better resolution, 60fps if your card is powerful enough and a few filters.

Still, I find the most visually impressive games to be the PS3 exclusives. The reason why? Sony's developers actually focus on elements of visuals that yield the biggest impact... namely physics, animation, motion blur, and lighting. This makes a much larger impact than slamming super high resolution textures on everything, super high quality anti-aliasing on everything, while the lighting engine remains fairly mediocre, the animation is still jerky and unrealistic, and the physics are not all that impressive.

Physics is one of the things that actually made Mafia 2 on PC stand out. Lighting and animation need to be a huge focus, as well as physics.

Great post.

The bolded part is something I've been feeling for a long time, but I didn't quite know how to articulate it. When some folks were saying that they think dolphin wii games are more visually impressive than any PS360 game I was kinda

 

[KKRT00]

Great post.

The bolded part is something I've been feeling for a long time, but I didn't quite know how to articulate it. When some folks were saying that they think dolphin wii games are more visually impressive than any PS360 game I was kinda

Problem with that post is that most of described things are actually what most PC exclusives or exclusive features are focused on, except for animations, because they are really expensive and hard to do, but all post processing things or physics stuff, were always pioneering on PC.
And actually PS3 exclusive games had awesome lighting back in a day [till 2009], but in 2011 they are quite outdated, hell Killzone 3 doesnt even support HDR.

 

[Wiktor]

Still, I find the most visually impressive games to be the PS3 exclusives. The reason why? Sony's developers actually focus on elements of visuals that yield the biggest impact... namely physics, animation, motion blur, and lighting. This makes a much larger impact than slamming super high resolution textures on everything, super high quality anti-aliasing on everything, while the lighting engine remains fairly mediocre, the animation is still jerky and unrealistic, and the physics are not all that impressive.

I disagree with that. Not because it's wrong, but because it's correct only in some situations.
Sure, in TPP games that's true. But textures are far more importangt than animation, motion blur or even lighting in in FPSes. And most of all "physics, animation, motion blur," all have marginal effect on visual quality of strategy games or simulator.

 

[Vaporak]

Great post.

The bolded part is something I've been feeling for a long time, but I didn't quite know how to articulate it. When some folks were saying that they think dolphin wii games are more visually impressive than any PS360 game I was kinda

That doesn't seem very likely, because PC games are typically the ones with more advanced lighting/shadowing systems, motion blur, and physics. This is mostly the case because those are graphical advances that don't require increased art budgets.

 

[SparkTR]

Problem with that post is that most of described things are actually what most PC exclusives or exclusive features are focused on, except for animations, because they are really expensive and hard to do, but all post processing things or physics stuff, were always pioneering on PC.
And actually PS3 exclusive games had awesome lighting back in a day [till 2009], but in 2011 they are quite outdated, hell Killzone 3 doesnt even support HDR.

That's what I was thinking. The motion blur and lighting in Crysis still impresses me more than any other game I have played, similar with Metro 2033. Especially shadows, which tend to have poor LoDs and detail in comparison to PC games. PhysX enabled games such as Alice, Mafia 2, Mirror's Edge and Cryostasis have effects I didn't think were possible to achieve not too long ago, however unoptimised they are.

 

[LowEndTorque]

Problem with that post is that most of described things are actually what most PC exclusives or exclusive features are focused on, except for animations, because they are really expensive and hard to do, but all post processing things or physics stuff, were always pioneering on PC.
And actually PS3 exclusive games had awesome lighting back in a day [till 2009], but in 2011 they are quite outdated, hell Killzone 3 doesnt even support HDR.

True.

Didn't entirely agree with every single thing said in that post, but I thought it did a good job of getting the point across that there's a lot more to pleasing visuals than just resolution and AA. (well at least for some of us, anyways)

One thing I think most of us can agree on is that great visuals are acheived through a combination of both raw hardware power and optimization. It's not stricly one or the other. (unless you think that the best way to do things is to always brute force everything, which I don't think many of us beleive) This is something that has been demonstrated in this thread through the RE5 example, and how UC3 could run on a 256mb 7900 with 256mb of ram.

Given PC-enthusiast gaf's skepticism on the potential of next-gen consoles, I want to pose another question.

Let's assume, just for argument's sake, that next gen consoles have the same specs as a high end gaming laptop of today. So for a GPU they get the equivalent of a 580M (which is about equal to a 560 Ti?) and for a CPU some sort of custom IBM 6 core processor or something.

Would hardware specs like these, once they are combined with the clever optimization of the industry's most talented developers, be able to theoretically yeild a level of visuals that PC-enthusiast gaf deems acceptable or satisfactory?

This is kind of the gist of what I was trying to get at with my previous sloppy and poorly worded questions about "developer talent vs. raw hardware" etc.

 

[dark10x]

That doesn't seem very likely, because PC games are typically the ones with more advanced lighting/shadowing systems, motion blur, and physics. This is mostly the case because those are graphical advances that don't require increased art budgets.

Even in games where those effects are brilliantly done, the overall look of the game in motion isn't always as stunning as it should be. The Witcher 2, for instance, feels a bit stiff in motion to me despite its impressive array of visual techniques.

 

[drexplora]

i take it his glass is all empty but had some good stuff in it

There hasnt been a gen while ive been alive that has dissapoint.
Every gen literally shits on what came before, it might not be evident at first with people always hoping for toy story being right around the corner!


GAF Timberline FTW!

 

[Felix Lighter]

True.

Didn't entirely agree with every single thing said in that post, but I thought it did a good job of getting the point across that there's a lot more to pleasing visuals than just resolution and AA. (well at least for some of us, anyways)

One thing I think most of us can agree on is that great visuals are acheived through a combination of both raw hardware power and optimization. It's not stricly one or the other. (unless you think that the best way to do things is to always brute force everything, which I don't think many of us beleive) This is something that has been demonstrated in this thread through the RE5 example, and how UC3 could run on a 256mb 7900 with 256mb of ram.

Given PC-enthusiast gaf's skepticism on the potential of next-gen consoles, I want to pose another question.

Let's assume, just for argument's sake, that next gen consoles have the same specs as a high end gaming laptop of today. So for a GPU they get the equivalent of a 580M (which is about equal to a 560 Ti?) and for a CPU some sort of custom IBM 6 core processor or something.

Would hardware specs like these, once they are combined with the clever optimization of the industry's most talented developers, be able to theoretically yeild a level of visuals that PC-enthusiast gaf deems acceptable or satisfactory?

This is kind of the gist of what I was trying to get at with my previous sloppy and poorly worded questions about "developer talent vs. raw hardware" etc.

I guess it depends on whether they choose to throw image quality out the window again next generation. As billions of dollars are invested in getting the most out of this locked down hardware, they will certainly squeeze out every ounce of performance but if they compromise on resolution, AA, texture filtering, etc. they will always be disappointing on some level.

Even in games where those effects are brilliantly done, the overall look of the game in motion isn't always as stunning as it should be. The Witcher 2, for instance, feels a bit stiff in motion to me despite its impressive array of visual techniques.

I just started playing this for the first time and it's jaw droppingly stunning but the animations are definitely the weakest point. They are not bad at all, quite good actually, but they aren't on the same level as the graphical fidelity, so they stand out as a weak point.

 

[charsace]

I guess it depends on whether they choose to throw image quality out the window again next generation. As billions of dollars are invested in getting the most out of this locked down hardware, they will certainly squeeze out every ounce of performance but if they compromise on resolution, AA, texture filtering, etc. they will always be disappointing on some level.




I just started playing this for the first time and it's jaw droppingly stunning but the animations are definitely the weakest point. They are not bad at all, quite good actually, but they aren't on the same level as the graphical fidelity, so they stand out as a weak point.

The witcher's animation isn't a technical limitation its more a game design choice. Its like in sports games. They could do some great animations, but it would take control away from the player.

 

[eso76]

There hasnt been a gen while ive been alive that has dissapoint.
Every gen literally shits on what came before, it might not be evident at first with people always hoping for toy story being right around the corner!


GAF Timberline FTW!

yeah, i agree with that, and i'm not with those who think next gen will show a smaller leap than previous ones either.
It's been 6 years, and it's going to be 7 or 8 before next gen comes around, so even with companies' will to keep costs and prices lower than in the past, that should warrant a similar leap, and that's without taking Moore 's law into account.

 

[drexplora]

I guess it depends on whether they choose to throw image quality out the window again next generation. As billions of dollars are invested in getting the most out of this locked down hardware, they will certainly squeeze out every ounce of performance but if they compromise on resolution, AA, texture filtering, etc. they will always be disappointing on some level.




I just started playing this for the first time and it's jaw droppingly stunning but the animations are definitely the weakest point. They are not bad at all, quite good actually, but they aren't on the same level as the graphical fidelity, so they stand out as a weak point.

Image quality will probably improve at least a bit, its one of the things that consistently improves each gen even if just a little, along with resolution.
It wont in any way become worse!
It is part of what allows consoles with way older HW to keep up with pc's in their own way.
sacrifices are made on both fronts.