-
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.
Video game graphics cognitive dissonance Thread
- Thread starter TEH-CJ
- Start date
Metalmurphy
Member
You guys are so fucking ridiculous trying to prove a point with those comparisons...
No one was arguing that the PC has or doesn't have better hardware. That's like arguing that water isn't water.
MP look better on PC? NO WAY!
facepalm.gif
No one was arguing that the PC has or doesn't have better hardware. That's like arguing that water isn't water.
MP look better on PC? NO WAY!
facepalm.gif
DennisK4 said:
what damage control? dark10x is only arguing that the casual gamer wouldn't notice the differences, not the obsessive types like us that roam video game forums on the internet.
Nobody's saying there's not a difference.I think of all the posters in this thread you might be one of the nuttiest, top 3 at least.
Metalmurphy
Member
Mad man are often in denial.DennisK4 said:
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
So you are saying that the right stick on the DS3 for God of War 3 controls the camera?Yoboman said:
I am not sure why God of War 3 is still being discussed then. There is nothing about it's art style that is particularly exciting. GOW2 had better art by far.zoukka said:
Lol fucking Black Ops used as a comparison. That example is such shit. Those PC shots don't look maxed out. They should be grabbed at 1080p, and downsampled properly to the comparison resolution.
darkpaladinmfc
Member
The Crysis 2 comparisons will be good :lol.
It's kind of funny seeing people accuse others of fanboyism and internet warriors, yet doing the exact same thing in the same sentence.
So for the heck of it I'm going to do it too. Are you really saying that newer hardware with more memory, higher clock-rates and bandwidth allow developers to produce higher res textures, more AA and other technical advantages? Because holy fuck isn't that just genius! Are you also trying to argue that it's the only factor that decides what makes a game look good? Does Black Ops PS3 look better than God of War 3? Does the PC version? What makes the difference? Isn't the way the levels, geometry, lighting, models and art is produced a much bigger difference than just slightly higher image quality? Aren't these things so subjective that it might simply be a difference in taste? Is it impossible to argue on the internet without resorting to elitism or simple being a rude twat?
So for the heck of it I'm going to do it too. Are you really saying that newer hardware with more memory, higher clock-rates and bandwidth allow developers to produce higher res textures, more AA and other technical advantages? Because holy fuck isn't that just genius! Are you also trying to argue that it's the only factor that decides what makes a game look good? Does Black Ops PS3 look better than God of War 3? Does the PC version? What makes the difference? Isn't the way the levels, geometry, lighting, models and art is produced a much bigger difference than just slightly higher image quality? Aren't these things so subjective that it might simply be a difference in taste? Is it impossible to argue on the internet without resorting to elitism or simple being a rude twat?
Nirolak said:
I think his point is that they won't look at the small details, like hair, but at the overall picture quality.
For example, at a quick glance the hair on 360 looks the best to me as it does not appear as one smooth texture, but several overlapping pieces, like real hair.
That said looking at something like the pack of cigarettes and the background guy instantly differentiates the PC/consoles.
I think the easiest PC/consoles differentiation is in line of sight and ground textures and detail. Use something like a landscape view and it can be immediately apparent what the difference is. Sort of a "Whoa, in this one you can see the mountains in the distance! I like it better" rather than small details.
And you didn't even use a game that looks amazing on PC. Well done, you pretty much /thread this thread.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I've always thought "Well the casual gamer would do this" positions to be at best useless and at worst hilarious.
scamartilhon
Member
BLagiver said:
No. The difference is massive, but you can't really see it in a youtube video.
It's obvious that a recent computer is able to pull off better graphics than a console, that's not even debatable. If every game ran on 60 fps (screw "cinematic" framerate drops, thats just dumb), jaggies-free and with the highest resolution possible, the world would be a better one. But that's just a dream. There are lots of amazing and relevant experiences that can only be obtained on consoles. Am I not playing them because they aren't the pinnaccle of graphical prowess? Certainly not, lol.
nelsonroyale
Member
Lumine said:
This is pretty much it...Take ME2 for example...I have played it maxed out on PC, and it looks great. Very nice textures, and sharp image quality, although geometry of environments isn't that impressive at some points. However, GoW3 and U2 are much more impressive visually. If you are into ipod scifi aesthetic then you are going to prefer the look of ME2, but in terms of visual bang, the aforementioned are more impressive. The point isn't whether pcs are more powerful, which they undoubtedly are, but whether games take advantage of those specs...most don't. Devs have more specs to play with so they can up resolution and texture quality etc...but many of the most talented devs are still console only.
Putting Two Worlds up as something that is more impressive than GoW3 from a purely aesthetic angle boggles the mind though...higher detail textures? maybe. Higher res? yes. Better AA? Potentially. Overall more visually impressive package? I don't think it is. The main problem with GoW3 is that visually it is inconsistant...but at its best it is amazing. The Witcher 2 is the only 3rd person game on the PC which I think could surpass it, especially if it is a totally seamless world (Witch the first game definitely wasn't)
Despite being a PC gamer, I have very little interest in graphical fidelity (I just prefer the games on PC), so I can say that I, personally, see little difference between those PC/360/PS3 shots. What little I do see I don't care about at all. I'm not the perfect test subject for this, however: I think most "casual" gamers -- at least the "casuals" on PS3/360 -- care significantly more about graphics than I do.
I think, instead, that this shows how terribly unoptimized games are for the PC in this day and age. Games are built with the PS3/360 in mind first, and then lazily up-ported to the PC. Obviously modern PCs are perfectly capable of blowing away the PS3/360: it's just that few games care to do show it.
I suppose my objection, if I had one, would be this: I can't imagine how angry and frustrated PS3/360 gamers would be if the overwhelming popularity of the Wii had actually been capitalized upon by third parties, and as a consequence you were playing a lot of games built for the Wii and lazily up-ported to the PS3/360. I remember even the mere mention of such an idea drew enormous derision and scorn. And make no mistake: the difference between the Wii->PS3/360 in raw power is at or near the difference between PS3/360->PC in raw power now.
Look at how the lack of optimization of the PC platform is being defended in here. Let me put this explicitly: some people in here seem to take satisfaction from the lack of disparity between the PS3/360 and PC multiplatform games. This does not mean that the PC isn't more powerful: it means the PC isn't being utilized fully. For a group of people who, almost without exception, care far more about graphics than I do, it is irrational to so vociferously defend inferior graphics. If graphics are a primary concern for you, then you should be begging developers to absolutely blow away anything the PS3/360 are capable of: it's certainly possible, they just aren't doing it because not enough people are begging.
If you aren't asking developers to do this, then your loyalty really lies with Sony/Microsoft (and their respective consoles), not with gaming as a whole, or with the advancement of graphics and technology. And again, there is strong indication that many people in this thread are doing precisely that.
I think, instead, that this shows how terribly unoptimized games are for the PC in this day and age. Games are built with the PS3/360 in mind first, and then lazily up-ported to the PC. Obviously modern PCs are perfectly capable of blowing away the PS3/360: it's just that few games care to do show it.
I suppose my objection, if I had one, would be this: I can't imagine how angry and frustrated PS3/360 gamers would be if the overwhelming popularity of the Wii had actually been capitalized upon by third parties, and as a consequence you were playing a lot of games built for the Wii and lazily up-ported to the PS3/360. I remember even the mere mention of such an idea drew enormous derision and scorn. And make no mistake: the difference between the Wii->PS3/360 in raw power is at or near the difference between PS3/360->PC in raw power now.
Look at how the lack of optimization of the PC platform is being defended in here. Let me put this explicitly: some people in here seem to take satisfaction from the lack of disparity between the PS3/360 and PC multiplatform games. This does not mean that the PC isn't more powerful: it means the PC isn't being utilized fully. For a group of people who, almost without exception, care far more about graphics than I do, it is irrational to so vociferously defend inferior graphics. If graphics are a primary concern for you, then you should be begging developers to absolutely blow away anything the PS3/360 are capable of: it's certainly possible, they just aren't doing it because not enough people are begging.
If you aren't asking developers to do this, then your loyalty really lies with Sony/Microsoft (and their respective consoles), not with gaming as a whole, or with the advancement of graphics and technology. And again, there is strong indication that many people in this thread are doing precisely that.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Thread needs more screens.
Far Cry 2 gets little justice for how awesome it is graphically.
Far Cry 2 gets little justice for how awesome it is graphically.
MaddenNFL64
Member
More comparisons please .
.Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
We would beg if it actually made a difference. It doesn't though. Would I love a Call of Duty that actually makes use of my hardware? Yes. Does begging for that change anything? No.Opiate said:
And those screenshots don't show resolution or framerate, two of the core PC ideals. Those two things alone can make games look quite a bit better.
MaddenNFL64
Member
Opiate said:
Perfect response. Why are my fellow console gamers defending inferior graphics capability so hard? I would love one of these console devs to just PUSH the PC hard like Crytek. God of War 3 built for a PC, imagine how good it would look. It would fucking blow away a PS3 version.
I think most people in here don't even understand who's the "average joe". For example my step-dad still plays MoH games on PS2 and thinks they're fine... do you actually believe he'll understand a difference between the same game with a lesser resolution? I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what that means :lol
But yeah, if a game has been released on consoles and PC, the PC version should be the superior one no doubt. I just don't get how it relates to the debate here, when the most popular nominees as the best looking console games, aren't available on PC.
But yeah, if a game has been released on consoles and PC, the PC version should be the superior one no doubt. I just don't get how it relates to the debate here, when the most popular nominees as the best looking console games, aren't available on PC.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
DennisK4 said:
Lostconfused
Member
This right here. I am pretty sure most pc gamers accepted the fact that developers focus on consoles and don't want to push the hardware and visuals. Right now we would just settle for decent ports of any console game so that we could up the resolution and turn vsync/AA on. But we can't even get that because devs just half ass it and produce games that hog way more resources than they should or are plagued with bugs or stuck with a stupid and cumbersome interface or a messed up claustrophobic FoV.Stallion Free said:
Edit: This rant doesn't belong here but I feel like typing out a bit of it anyway. This is all just a symptom of developers getting comfortable with the closed tightly controlled system of consoles. Things like cutting dedicated servers from MW2, breaking modding hacks in GTA4, putting DLC on the damn disc that the game came on, draconian DRM that demands you to be online all the time. These all came about from desire to have as much control over PC games as their console counterparts.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
The point was the two dudes looking pissed. :lolLCfiner said:
The vegetation thing is an opinion though. FarCry 2's foliage is amazing to me. I love the way it looks, aside from the grass not really being textured. But the quantity of veg and how it all moves and shit is pretty jaw-dropping.
I am a sucker for good vegetation as well.BobsRevenge said:
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZRwEFpr3KQ
The Witcher 2 only has 4 loading screens in the entire game!nelsonroyale said:
I'm not bringing up other things like how ridiculous it is to compare a 8 hours action game with a 50 hours RPG, making the latter is a huge challenge compared to the former, creation of a lot more assets is needed, lots of quest scripting, dialog and animations for NPCs, it's a lot more complex overall than a corridor action game, seriously.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Even the shallowest rpg is more complex than almost any action game.miladesn said:
MaddenNFL64
Member
DennisK4 said:
They use the latest technology in real time rendering, that's for sure.
You see any janky-ness when you play it? I hope you know what I mean. Even great games have what we would all call "jank".
EmCeeGramr
Member
The problem is that half the people here assume that because PC gaming is great at one thing, then it must be equally terrible at another, and that in the interests of cosmic balance the latter quality must be superior on consoles, as though PCs are designed by a particularly resentful djinn or accursed monkey's paw.
PC games have better graphics...
...so they must have worse gameplay!
The ol' standby, used alternately by fans of the current generation's weakest console. In the fanboy's game-obsessed mind, the graphics being worse means that the developers have more skill points to allocate to the "gameplay" sector... as long as those graphics are on a platform other than the one of your choice. This is of course complete bullshit. Many games that were graphical powerhouses for their time scored extremely well and are renowned for their gameplay, and Crysis (the biggest and most recent target) is no different.
...so they must be less artistic!
This is just laughable. It's always directed at a handful of games in particular (especially Crysis), completely ignoring all other games that don't strive for photorealism. This makes this argument slightly more disingenuous than the rest. Not only that, but it forwards the absurd claim that if an artist draws a human being in near-perfect proportion and with realistic colors, then their accomplishment is less artistic than if the proportions were exaggerated and/or if the subject wore outlandish or colorful costumes.
...so they must look sterile and lifeless!
This is so self-evidently ridiculous it's incredible. This argument is always directed either at photorealistic games (insinuating that real life is sterile and lifeless in an intellectually bankrupt assertion) or games with exceptional picture quality (while at the same time salivating over bullshots with perfect IQ of the latest console game). Frankly, all this argument does is belie that the proponent is completely ignorant of the definition of "sterile." The last games I played on PC that had "sterile" environments were Portal, Mass Effect 1, and Mirror's Edge, all of which clearly did so by artistic choice, to convey something to the viewer about the world the characters lived in (and which notably transferred back and forth between sterile and dirty)!
...so they must be too complex or expensive to play!
GAF has done such a fantastic job of tearing down false statements like "big comfy couch" and "I need $2000 every three years to keep up!" that this doesn't even need to be addressed.
...so there must be no games to play!
Again with the belief that some irony-minded genie is controlling the gaming industry. "So you'll have the best looking games indeed," he spake whilst twirling his fiery mustache, "but only a handful!" and with a plume of spice-scented smoke the frightful apparition vanished from sight, and then Rod Sterling moralized over the plight of the poor victim.
PC games have better graphics...
...so they must have worse gameplay!
The ol' standby, used alternately by fans of the current generation's weakest console. In the fanboy's game-obsessed mind, the graphics being worse means that the developers have more skill points to allocate to the "gameplay" sector... as long as those graphics are on a platform other than the one of your choice. This is of course complete bullshit. Many games that were graphical powerhouses for their time scored extremely well and are renowned for their gameplay, and Crysis (the biggest and most recent target) is no different.
...so they must be less artistic!
This is just laughable. It's always directed at a handful of games in particular (especially Crysis), completely ignoring all other games that don't strive for photorealism. This makes this argument slightly more disingenuous than the rest. Not only that, but it forwards the absurd claim that if an artist draws a human being in near-perfect proportion and with realistic colors, then their accomplishment is less artistic than if the proportions were exaggerated and/or if the subject wore outlandish or colorful costumes.
...so they must look sterile and lifeless!
This is so self-evidently ridiculous it's incredible. This argument is always directed either at photorealistic games (insinuating that real life is sterile and lifeless in an intellectually bankrupt assertion) or games with exceptional picture quality (while at the same time salivating over bullshots with perfect IQ of the latest console game). Frankly, all this argument does is belie that the proponent is completely ignorant of the definition of "sterile." The last games I played on PC that had "sterile" environments were Portal, Mass Effect 1, and Mirror's Edge, all of which clearly did so by artistic choice, to convey something to the viewer about the world the characters lived in (and which notably transferred back and forth between sterile and dirty)!
...so they must be too complex or expensive to play!
GAF has done such a fantastic job of tearing down false statements like "big comfy couch" and "I need $2000 every three years to keep up!" that this doesn't even need to be addressed.
...so there must be no games to play!
Again with the belief that some irony-minded genie is controlling the gaming industry. "So you'll have the best looking games indeed," he spake whilst twirling his fiery mustache, "but only a handful!" and with a plume of spice-scented smoke the frightful apparition vanished from sight, and then Rod Sterling moralized over the plight of the poor victim.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
MaddenNFL64 said:
I'm not so sure that it would tbh, yes ok it would have higher res etc but I really don't think it would be a 'dramatic' improvement, and no doubt like Crysis you would need a pretty stonking PC to get that improvement running smoothly, the problem is with PC development is you have the bloat of the OS etc, and your having to take into account literally thousands of hardware configurations.
End of the day we all know that the PC wins overall 'technically' mainly due to higher resolution, AA, AF etc, but that doesn't mean we should discount some of the better lower res exclusive console work out there, the very fact that we are comparing consoles with over half decade old tech in them to PC's is amazing to me, it just goes to show what a talented team working on a static platform can pull off.
I'm an avid PC gamer, even thinking about grabbing a GTX580 in a few weeks time, completed Crysis/Warhead a few times over but still imo opinion in terms of consistent high quality texture work nothing beats UC2, I'm almost temped to state that as a fact, even over Metro 2033 (which I also own), Metro kills it in lighting quality though.
I guess the main problem with this debate is people judge the merits of graphics by many different rule sets, some say higher AA/AF means automatic win, some say better art direction = win, for others better textures = win.
If every console exclusive was on the PC also this debate would be a lot easier, but the problem is we have a handful of exclusive console games that are admittedly lower res etc but at the same time they are pulling of some amazing graphical feats.
Narag said:
You mean a ps3 game is going to be playing with the big boys? :lol
Just look and enjoy. If you love graphic fidelity, you'll love the photomode built with that very thing in mind. this mode will most definitely compete with the big boys. up to 18 mp I think... ;p
Credit RDK@Gt planet.