LQX
Member
A liar you are then.
-
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
A liar you are then.
cooljeanius
Member
Best point of this thread so far.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
agreed, i can only imagine what the budgets will be for a big title next gen. The amount of work required to make real time assets and cg/film assets are very similar these days. in some cases even more work because you to model low poly versions as well the high res sculpts.
I think the actual hardware may well be a generation ahead (definitely if you count SLI). But I can't think of a PC game that makes the current consoles look completely dated. Especially considering some of PS3's best. The aircraft takeoff in Uncharted3 matches the best I've seen on PC for scale and sheer bombast.
I H8 Memes
Member
Gears 2 looked better, even. The aliasing is really bad, and essentially outweighs any updates they made to the lighting engine.
Well at least you didn't take a picture of it sitting in your toilet while you were pissing on it.
IrishNinja
Member
i'm with the "don't expect 1080p/60FPS next gen" camp; something's gonna be sacrificed, even before 3D and kinect.
...yet.
wait did this really happen
A lot of games already author assets and textures at extremely high fidelity and then trim them to console standards.
I think the people saying "yes" are missing one thing that hasn't been very different between consoles and PC this gen: polygon counts.
In my eyes at least, whenever we hit a new console generation the one thing that let's me know we've hit a true leap in terms of graphics the most is seeing numbers of polygons that would've been impossible on the previous hardware. I've been playing The Witcher 2, Crysis 2, and most multiplatform games on PC this generation, and while the lighting, textures, resolution, and frame rate are all better, the characters and environments all have about the same amount of detail in terms of polygons between the platforms. The only thing I've seen make that difference on PC is tessellation.
The only PC game I've played recently that I honestly don't think could be done on consoles from a gameplay standpoint is ArmA 2. The range of scale that game has along with the massive number of NPCs all engaging in completely dynamic battles is completely beyond anything I've seen on consoles. The only thing I've seen try to come close is maybe the console versions of the Operation Flashpoint games.
Also, I'd like to see some good comparison shots between PC and console versions of TW2, BF3, and C2. Straight comparisons too, with both shots in 720p (or 1080p stretched for the console shots).
In my eyes at least, whenever we hit a new console generation the one thing that let's me know we've hit a true leap in terms of graphics the most is seeing numbers of polygons that would've been impossible on the previous hardware. I've been playing The Witcher 2, Crysis 2, and most multiplatform games on PC this generation, and while the lighting, textures, resolution, and frame rate are all better, the characters and environments all have about the same amount of detail in terms of polygons between the platforms. The only thing I've seen make that difference on PC is tessellation.
The only PC game I've played recently that I honestly don't think could be done on consoles from a gameplay standpoint is ArmA 2. The range of scale that game has along with the massive number of NPCs all engaging in completely dynamic battles is completely beyond anything I've seen on consoles. The only thing I've seen try to come close is maybe the console versions of the Operation Flashpoint games.
Also, I'd like to see some good comparison shots between PC and console versions of TW2, BF3, and C2. Straight comparisons too, with both shots in 720p (or 1080p stretched for the console shots).
ah yes just what a shitty console vs. pc thread needed, terrible misogyny
I H8 Memes
Member
Better looking trees. I still can't believe how bad the trees look in Assassin's Creed.
Even though I love the game, it has a very long way to go (nevermind my compressed Steam pics):
This is one of the nicer vistas of AC:B, and it's marred by flat lighting, poor depth of field with plenty of artifacts, low poly terrain geometry, low resolution ambient occlusion, low resolution world textures, and unimpressive foliage. Also, even just increasing the IQ beyond 1080p w/ 4x AA as is seen in my shot would fix a lot of aliasing issues (foliage, coliseum gates).
Although the lighting in AC is flat and boring, the self shadowing for some reason is really impressive:
The folds in Demond's shirt are highlighted in different ways by the really nice self shadowing as different light sources shine on him. I'm not sure what type of visual effect this is...it's not actually rendered shadows. It's more like an ambient occlusion map or something like that. It's probably my favorite effect in that game.
LowEndTorque
Member
wow are those AC screenshots from the PC version?
LowEndTorque
Member
geez, no wonder the PC community hates Ubi.
I have a pretty decent computer, but I always bought the console versions of AC for some reason. For a PC game from a big publisher that just looks... bad.
There are downsides to L.A. Noire's facial animations. They are pretty low resolution, and when seen in a high resolution environment, they look like videos of actors being played on a 3D mesh. They're also capped at 60fps.
That kind of tech is promising, however, and I'd bet storage space was one of the main reasons they are not as high resolution as they could be.
The character models and art are great. The environments? Yeah, not so much. Still, the game is incredibly smooth and well polished, so that makes up for a lot of visual shortcomings.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Everybody has their own idea of what comprises a generational leap.
PCs don't work that way. Their individual systems receive incremental increases/updates/expansions.
If you wanted to simplify it you could use DirectX as your yardstick, with the 360/ps3 somewhere around DirectX 9+ while PC can be at DX11. This then triggers a discussion about just how much use DX10/DX11 are actually getting from the developers which IMHO is "not much".
Outside of that the PC enjoys the leads it always has, in raw horsepower and raw capacity. It will always have that, just as a function of not having to fit into a console footprint, at a console price.
PCs don't work that way. Their individual systems receive incremental increases/updates/expansions.
If you wanted to simplify it you could use DirectX as your yardstick, with the 360/ps3 somewhere around DirectX 9+ while PC can be at DX11. This then triggers a discussion about just how much use DX10/DX11 are actually getting from the developers which IMHO is "not much".
Outside of that the PC enjoys the leads it always has, in raw horsepower and raw capacity. It will always have that, just as a function of not having to fit into a console footprint, at a console price.
Xplatformer
Member
Then no...we don't need next generation consoles then.
Sorry folks, but as pretty as BF3 is on PC....I can't imagine how mind blowing God of War 4 on a console with just 2GB RAM and the equivalent of a 560ti would be.
As someone has stated, the GAMES aren't a generation ahead so it doesn't matter if the hardware is.
gundamkyoukai
Member
I would say no while games like the Witcher 2 and BF3 look great they don't look a gen ahead .
To makes matter worst PC hardware is not a gen ahead of consoles it's more like 3 or 4 gens.
When i see like UC3 , GOW3 , Gears 3 getting done on 512 ram and 6 year old hardware .
Give consoles devs a year old gfx card 2Gb of ram and good cpu it going to makes games like Witcher 2 and BF3 seem like not such a big leap.
Then you going to see how great PC games could have been if not for consoles still holding them back.
While some might say they going to have budget problems assets are already done way above 720p anyway next gen we going to see them much better thanks to more power.
To makes matter worst PC hardware is not a gen ahead of consoles it's more like 3 or 4 gens.
When i see like UC3 , GOW3 , Gears 3 getting done on 512 ram and 6 year old hardware .
Give consoles devs a year old gfx card 2Gb of ram and good cpu it going to makes games like Witcher 2 and BF3 seem like not such a big leap.
Then you going to see how great PC games could have been if not for consoles still holding them back.
While some might say they going to have budget problems assets are already done way above 720p anyway next gen we going to see them much better thanks to more power.
There are some who believe it will be the biggest leap ever. I call those people delusional.
Games, not really.I completely and fully understand that in terms of hardware, PC's are indeed several generations ahead of consoles. But question this thread is posing is more along the lines of software. Are the games themselves that are currently available on PC's what you would consider a full generational leap over the games available on consoles? (ignoring the theoretical power of kickass PC hardware)
So what do you think gaf? Is 1080p, 60fps and tons of AA enough to be considered a true generational leap? Or is a generational leap less about better graphics and more about providing new experiences that weren't possible on previous hardware?
Are the current games (games, not hardware) available on PC's what you would consider a full generational leap over what's available on consoles?
oh, and in b4 inevitable "yes. /thread." and "first post nails it" "didn'treadlol.gif" etc.
I guess there is argument for things like Arma 2, The Witcher 2, Mirror's Edge, large maps, longer view distance, 64 player online, etc. but as far as AAA games that use knew breaking technology that constitutes a generational leap, games now simply aren't there because of:
1) Console money. Sales = Profit.
2) Money + a crazy idea + talent + a way it doesn't impact other aspects of a title + is fun
3) Current Game design
I'm not sure what exactly would constitute a generational leap from today. If I had to guess I'd go with animation, AI, physics (and environmental interaction), view distance, and faster loading. Better FPS, textures, lightning, etc. I'm not sure about. There is making what we have and know better, and then actual improvements in other areas that require dedicated work, power, and might not affect key elements of gameplay. 60FPS from 30FPS sure feels like a generation leap to me though.
I would say that the PC experience of having everything installed, fast loading, dedicated servers, etc. could be considered a next-gen online experience though. The inherent precision (M+KB) and content sharing of a PC platform are also key strengths for games. Warcraft III (and custom games) and StarCraft:BW and SC II could not exist on consoles as they did on PC.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Supreme Commander, maybe. Consoles run into hard memory limitations when that many objects get pushed around.
I don't know what "a generation leap ahead" is supposed to mean, because console games will probably still run at 720p and/or 30fps next gen. If not all of them than a lot of them. IQ gets shrugged off in these discussions but if the IQ expectations are completely different the two platforms aren't really comparable.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
This generation brought us high quality (object) motion blur, HDR lighting, and ambient occlusion.
There simply aren't many visual tricks missing at this point, beyond just increasing the resolution and quality of these effects.
According to console GAF, none of those things are noticeable so it's not asking nearly enough.
I can see the diference, but I dont think it is that big. Big is ps1 (ugly, awfull 3d) to ps2.
AcceptableGhost
Member
The reason why I game on the PC is 60FPS and being able to use the M/KB for genres that gain from it. As long as console games are not ticking those 2 boxes for the majority of the games than it is always a generational leap ahead for me.
Yoshichan
And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
PS2 is ugly awful 3D too.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Seeing as that I play both PC/console games on a 1080p, I would like to see a 1080p PC shot maxed settings vs. a 720p console shot stretched to fill 1080p as it is on my TV. Also, lossless screens are a must.
Though those screenshots are both from the PC version from what I remember, just at different graphics settings. I'd expect the difference to be bigger with actual directfeed shots of the 360 version.
I really think some of these guys are exaggerating. I won't deny that games look best on pc, but the leap is not as great as I would expect. Most of the same visual effects are on the consoles. The biggest disappointment for me is pc quality. You would think games will look leaps and bounds more than there 5 year old console brothers.
The only thing I can notice is textures, AA, and frame rate. These are huge in their own rights, but not a game changer. If the ps4 and next xbox have launch games that rival the best looking pc games, I will be very disappointed. I expect the new console generation to look much better that what current pc games offer.
The core experience is the same on consoles. You don't lose any sense of adventure, you don't feel cheated, you don't feel you are losing anything. You can point to battlefield 3 all day, but the game is great across all platforms.
Let's take for example skyrim. Apparently it's the best on pc, and rightfully so spec wise. But are you telling me that someone playing on the xbox 360 will have any less an experience overall? Even with the frame rate issues, I don't think it renders the game unplayable. I dare even say not even the ps3 version. OVERALL, the experience is the same. The level of immersion, the satisfaction and rewards of long hours put into the game are the same. I don't see by not owning the pc version, you lose any of these qualities.
The only thing I can notice is textures, AA, and frame rate. These are huge in their own rights, but not a game changer. If the ps4 and next xbox have launch games that rival the best looking pc games, I will be very disappointed. I expect the new console generation to look much better that what current pc games offer.
The core experience is the same on consoles. You don't lose any sense of adventure, you don't feel cheated, you don't feel you are losing anything. You can point to battlefield 3 all day, but the game is great across all platforms.
Let's take for example skyrim. Apparently it's the best on pc, and rightfully so spec wise. But are you telling me that someone playing on the xbox 360 will have any less an experience overall? Even with the frame rate issues, I don't think it renders the game unplayable. I dare even say not even the ps3 version. OVERALL, the experience is the same. The level of immersion, the satisfaction and rewards of long hours put into the game are the same. I don't see by not owning the pc version, you lose any of these qualities.
pseudocaesar
Member
The gap between PC games of today and PS3/360 games of today is not as large as PS1-PS2 or PS2-PS3 jump.
The only people who think this are people who don't have both console and PC and can't make direct comparisons for themselves. Way too many members of console-only GAF love to trot into these threads and speak as if they're informed on the subject.
A ENB mod would probably look fantastic in assassins creed. much better than Skyrim at least. It's a shame there isn't one.
EDIT: apparently there is. lol
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Whether 4 or 5 games today are actually a generation ahead is more a matter of opinion at this point. But what is undeniable is that the difference between console and PC games today is nowhere near as at the end of the previous gen. For instance, RAGE (despite how pretty its art looks) is nothing like DOOM 3 when it released. Even when Crysis was released the distance was still pretty big, but we haven't got much far ahead of Crysis in 4 years.
In a hypothetical scenario in which Crysis 2 was made under the original's philosophy. And as the original, only the 2010's equivalent of an 8800GT could run it, then you would get a game that is undoubtedly a gen ahead. Such kind of pc game has not been made since, but it would have been made last gen.
Edit: Here's hoping for Metro Last Light, or even Doom 4.
In a hypothetical scenario in which Crysis 2 was made under the original's philosophy. And as the original, only the 2010's equivalent of an 8800GT could run it, then you would get a game that is undoubtedly a gen ahead. Such kind of pc game has not been made since, but it would have been made last gen.
Edit: Here's hoping for Metro Last Light, or even Doom 4.
I bought a new pc and the best graphics card to play Halflife 2 when it was released. I do realize the graphical leap it has over the xbox version. But my friend years later played the xbox version, and we could talk about it the same way. Graphics comparisons were never mention when we talked about how awesome the game was. We both had the same core experience.
I have a gaming capable PC. i5 and 6950 and all that. Not an enthusiast kinda rig, but games run well. I consider myself 'informed' about the subject. And I agree that there is generally not a huge difference in terms of immersion.
The tech is definitely there, but this generation the publishers decided that releasing identical games across as many platforms as possible was the best way to go. I personally think the big publishers trying to force platform homogenization was one of the major reasons they lost so much money this generation so hopefully it'll be abandoned going forward, but I kind of doubt it. My opinion on the OP's question is that there already exist PC games that can't be done on consoles, but in the console popular genre's the games haven't move much past the console baseline because the publishers don't think they need to improve the PC versions much at all in order to get good enough sales out of the PC versions.