• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Sterile Angular Angles 3: PC graphics lack soul, unlike soul filled console graphics.

Finaika said:
Joke post?
Click to expand...

Blizzard and League do have terrible art direction. There are people who prefer that overwrought, incoherent style, but those people, one could argue, do not know very much about good art design.

Source: I'm learning about good art design. :D

EVOL 100% said:
What was the original title? I'm guessing it wasn't a very intelligent one.
Click to expand...

Something about consoles having good art direction and PCs not.
 
Jtrizzy said:
Oh boy. I guess games rendering at a higher resolution or frame rate just looks fake to people somehow.
Click to expand...
Resolution specifically, yes.

I'm not saying higher resolution isn't objectively better, I'm only saying that higher resolutions can sometimes make a game's flaws stand out more. I think the problem was mostly with lower poly counts last generation though. For some people, a bad texture looks better (or 'less worse' I guess) blurry than it does sharper.

I mean, I'm not going to sit here and try to argue that PC graphics are bad and PC games lack soul or something like that. But it's a real thing and people aren't just making it up to ruffle feathers. At least I'm not. I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's coming from a genuine place.

EmCeeGramr said:
oh my god i forgot about this post: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=24377849
Click to expand...
Yes, and just the same then as now, I did not start the conversation nor is there any difference between what I'm saying now and what I said then. Which is surprising because I was considerably less mature three years ago. I wish I could see the pictures though.


I think too many people see this as a direct assault on PC as a platform. If this effect is so hard to believe, then obviously you don't see it. So why be so bothered by it?

One person in that old thread brought up the idea that if you shit-up a PC game with lower resolutions and add some smudging/masking effects that it would lose the effect. I'm inclined to believe this. I'm not singing console superiority or anything at all here.
 
Does anyone remember that thread where that Gafer liked to turn down games resolution on purpose because he said it made them more life like?

That thread ruled.

Also... I am not really sure what the OP is going on about. Seems like some subjective thing (really really subjective).

And even then... suspicious if you look at the wording and a number of other hot topics on Gaf as of late.
 
True story. PC games have generic art style with some few exceptions like Planescape Torment (infinity engine games), Vampire masquerade Bloodlines etc.
 
Fancy Corndog said:
Yes, and just the same then as now, I did not start the conversation nor is there any difference between what I'm saying now and what I said then. Which is surprising because I was considerably less mature three years ago. I wish I could see the pictures though.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint: they were GTA III looking blocky and "angular" as a console game but with awful eye-hurting IQ, then GTA III looking blocky and "angular" but nice as a PC game so it looked worse according to you even though the polygon edges were just as obvious.


You were the person that the "angular graphics" guy was first inspired to post in response to, and maintained the "PC look" bullshit. This is not something to remain proud of 3 years later.
 
Shai-Tan said:
I think this is more of a consequence of game design philosophy. For example, if you make expansive or open world games the effort is put into creating tools to generate vegetation, lighting, effects for a general case which is different from games which tend to be in a smaller scope that can have a more focused effort put in a space.

Even within the PC only developers you see how a more narrow scope/environment can allow for more unique objects, better, more unique textures, etc.

There is also the function of money in that PC focused have historically tended to have less budgets than some of the console games which pushes developers in the direction of cheaper practices.

Aside from that I think one could fairly say that PC has tended to aim for a type of realism that is in contrast to some console games that have flourishes in the art and design. But it's hard to separate it from those other issues.

The one last contrast to make is a distinction between character centric and environment centric design. Games like Demon's Souls and Dragon's Dogma that are supposedly western in their approach have nice looking environments but how they really stand out is in the design of the armor, the monsters, etc (even when the faces are a type of ugly that can only be generated with sliders) whereas the western games will tend to stand out for having the sun set on a mountain range in a jungle, a boreal forest, whatever nice textures on the ground, etc

edit: another one. actual vs exaggerated. many western developers have an actual focused design which can lead to generic looking characters that don't stand out. exaggeration does exist here but it tends to be in sexual dimorphism (men have huge muscles, women have wide hips, big breasts) or the odd/ugly (like Tim Burton) whereas in asian design you tend to see exaggerated attractiveness (impossibly perfect faces flaunting over the top fashion). the focus on realism in PC has led to a games that are actualizations of things more than they are ideal representations of them - so you see Crysis have ever more detailed models... of mosly ugly dudes.
Click to expand...
Crysis was ported to the consoles. The PC/console dichotomy essentially doesn't exist. Everything is trending towards being multiplatform. At best, people can compare 1st party console exclusives with each other and try to generalize from there.
 
Hey remember when all of those console gamers claimed they had played Crysis 1 and that it wasnt a game and it felt more like a tech demo? Remember when not a single console gamer on the planet said that after Crysis 1 came out on consoles?
 
These threads are always hilarious. It's really similar to the variety of "JRPGs suck" or "WRPGs suck" or "eastern games suck" or "western games suck" threads we get in that it's mostly a reflection of people having narrow experiences with something but wanting to bash it. Of course, in this particular instance there's often the added insecurity of the nagging feeling of missing out on something (i.e. much better graphics).

I H8 Memes said:
Hey remember when all of those console gamers claimed they had played Crysis 1 and that it wasnt a game and it felt more like a tech demo? Remember when not a single console gamer on the planet said that after Crysis 1 came out on consoles?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
I H8 Memes said:
Hey remember when all of those console gamers claimed they had played Crysis 1 and that it wasnt a game and it felt more like a tech demo? Remember when not a single console gamer on the planet said that after Crysis 1 came out on consoles?
Click to expand...

Oh, don't be mean. All of those people who have long held that high resolutions, great textures, AF, and AA make PC games look unrealistic, flat, and sterile, are still very upset about the PS4 giving their games the "PC look." At least, I assume they are.
 
MXNQA.jpg
 
EmCeeGramr said:
Oh, don't be mean. All of those people who have long held that high resolutions, great textures, AF, and AA make PC games look unrealistic, flat, and sterile, are still very upset about the PS4 giving their games the "PC look." At least, I assume they are.
Click to expand...
That's why the Wii U has been such a hit so far. Most people can't handle the angular graphics shown for the PS4.
 
Opiate said:
The games cited by the OP are God of War, Uncharted and Killzone. I don't think that's the OP's problem.
Click to expand...

Oh wow I missed that, stand aside GAF make way for fucking Killzone - a game filled to the brim with 'soul'.
 
hemtae said:
This reminds me of the cognitive dissonance thread before it went into the whole "angular graphics" thing.

Was this thread just for "AAA" games? But even then I'm not sure I agree with that.
Click to expand...

That's where this is from. I was trying to remember where I was reading something similar to this.
 
I appreciate this thread for one reason. After it was posted, I went to go grab shots of the Banner Saga, and I realized the F2P Factions version was just realeased. Awesome thanks OP.

VH1Yn.jpg
 
EmCeeGramr said:
Oh, don't be mean. All of those people who have long held that high resolutions, great textures, AF, and AA make PC games look unrealistic, flat, and sterile, are still very upset about the PS4 giving their games the "PC look." At least, I assume they are.
Click to expand...
I did see it in parts of Killzone. Some of the cover that the player jumped behind.

In other parts, it wasn't there where I'd expect it to be. Like the broken rubble for instance.

If this is a real thing, Killzone isn't the first to overcome it though. BF3 on PC was the first that I noticed.


There are also PC games that have more of a "soft" look to me like I'd expect from console games. Obviously if I can say this, 'PC look' and 'Console look' are not correct terms. Trine, for instance here.

Another important example for me is Durante's Dark Souls fix. The game happened to have awesome textures hidden in it, so it effectively just looked drastically better with no "angular", "sterile", or anything like that. If the game had shitty textures, this may not have been the case when the resolution was improved.
 
Fancy Corndog said:
I did see it in parts of Killzone. Some of the cover that the player jumped behind.

In other parts, it wasn't there where I'd expect it to be. Like the broken rubble for instance.

If this is a real thing, Killzone isn't the first to overcome it though. BF3 on PC was the first that I noticed.


There are also PC games that have more of a "soft" look to me like I'd expect from console games. Obviously if I can say this, 'PC look' and 'Console look' are not correct terms. Trine, for instance here.
Click to expand...

So basically, low-res is tits.
 
Jtrizzy said:
Oh boy. I guess games rendering at a higher resolution or frame rate just looks fake to people somehow.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, that does appear to be the case. A lot of people who saw 'The Hobbit' at 48 fps complained that it looked 'unnatural', because they've become acustomed to the crappy 24 fps that movies are generally filmed at.
 
padlock said:
Strangely enough, that does appear to be the case. A lot of people who saw 'The Hobbit' at 48 fps complained that it looked 'unnatural', because they've become acustomed to the crappy 24 fps that movies are generally filmed at.
Click to expand...

I used this example earlier. I also included people who think Records sound better than high quality CD audio. People grow accustomed to a certain style or design, and find things that deviate from that design to be strange.

This concept can explain a wide variety of phenomenon in gaming: not just why people might find PC graphics to be "cold," but why people often find the Wii Mote uncomfortable, or Keyboard/Mouse ungainly; or why people feel like they "just can't get in" to handheld games.

People grow up playing games a particular way with a particular controller with particular graphical standards. For some people, things which deviate from these norms significantly are going to seem weird, off, or wrong because it isn't what they're accustomed to. I want to emphasize again that there is nothing wrong with this; everyone does this in some form or fashion.
 
OP here,

Seeing as this thread isn't going to die, (one could wish), I would like to clarify a few things. I certainly don't feel there aren't countless examples where PC games shine artistically. And certainly using Crysis 3 as an example was poorly thought out to say the least, especially given my embarrassingly limited experience with Crysis 3, (which I am going to rectify by playing it all the way through over the next few days on my PC). What I failed to articulate was that, in my opinion, console games to me tend to value artistic qualities a bit more than PC titles. Now whether this difference spawns from my own subjective taste in art style, or that console games may very well hide their flaws better due to low resolutions, etc. I'm not quite sure.

This perceived difference in artistic quality for me has gone back a long time and there are examples on every console going back all the way to the beginning. However, this issue to me does seem to be getting better now that PC titles and console titles are being developed so closely together, (being released on all platforms). Again this is an entirely subjective observation. And like I said, nobody is denying that there are countless examples of artistically superior PC titles.

Lesson learned. Posting a thread on an entirely subjective view, especially when it involves platform wars is ridiculous.

But most importantly, this is what happens when you post a thread in any state of inebriation.

Anyway, I'm abandoning this sunken ship of a thread, and apologize to GAF for foisting this turd upon you.
 
Sometimes, extra efforts has to be put into console games to achieve a certain look or experience, but apart from that, I see no evidence that PC games lacks soul.
Some are, but just as some consoles games are too. I'm not even going to think about smartphones games :p

Maybe you need to look at the indie scene, or even at the PC exclusive AAA. Diablo and Dota2 could be examples.
 
The bottom line is that you should want to play any modern game at the native res of your screen, and 60 fps is always better than 30. I think it's just that people aren't used to these things yet. I promise you that even games from Xbox1 era look better in 1080p.

I'm playing Crysis 3 right now maxed out but limited to 30 fps, and it kills me a little inside each time I pan the camera.
 
Fancy Corndog said:
I did see it in parts of Killzone. Some of the cover that the player jumped behind.

In other parts, it wasn't there where I'd expect it to be. Like the broken rubble for instance.

If this is a real thing, Killzone isn't the first to overcome it though. BF3 on PC was the first that I noticed.


There are also PC games that have more of a "soft" look to me like I'd expect from console games. Obviously if I can say this, 'PC look' and 'Console look' are not correct terms. Trine, for instance here.

Another important example for me is Durante's Dark Souls fix. The game happened to have awesome textures hidden in it, so it effectively just looked drastically better with no "angular", "sterile", or anything like that. If the game had shitty textures, this may not have been the case when the resolution was improved.
Click to expand...

Is this a problem with games being designed for 720p then stretched to fit a 1080p screen? The resolution and IQ is increased, but the actual level of detail is not increased, meaning low res textures and polygons stand out. I don't get that problem myself, but i guess i could understand it. Though most PC games haven't really had this problem for a few years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AC Black Flag PC specs and console graphics modes detailed
15
235
viveks86 replied
Dynasty Warriors 3 Remastered Graphics Comparison
17
500
IAmRei replied
Why Fidelity is Ruining Graphics
47
564
IAmRei replied
PC games should have a 'console graphics' preset
Opinion  2
78
2K
Guilty_AI replied
Soul Calibur 3 (PS2 Classic/PS5)
RTTP  2
57
1K
consoul replied
Top Bottom