Support NeoGAF

[brain_stew]

Hold up.

People are seriously trying to argue that PC games have a certain 'look' about them?

Seriousy?

I mean, seriously seriously?

People are genuinely arguing this as a point?

Yep, and apparently anyone correcting them and calling them on this ridiculous BS is not allowed to because its going to hurt their feelings.

No, I can't believe it either. Never seen such a celebration of wilful ignorance and stupidity in a thread on GAF in all the time I've posted here and that's saying something.

 

[syllogism]

You must honestly think you're some priest preaching some holy gospel of videogame technicalties :lol

I have no problems of people correcting factual information. But like I've said in many occasions, this thread is more about subjective opinions and views. So good luck turning that into factual debate.

And yet you were just a while ago asserting realistic visual style, which no "professional artist would use", is objectively/factually worse. Not only that, but it was a "really simple" concept.

 

[Yasae]

If they're going to offer a valid opinion on the subject then the burden is on them to back their arguments up with objective analysis. Post complete BS that is provably false and you're going to be called on it, ridiculed and ripped to shreds, as is the natural order of things on GAF.

:lol

Wow, how long have you been here? That's basically never how things work.

EDIT:

And yet you were just a while ago asserting realistic visual style, which no "professional" artist would use, is objectively/factually worse

See what I mean? We're already knee deep in bullshit.

God help this thread.

 

[Dennis]

Hold up.

People are seriously trying to argue that PC games have a certain 'look' about them?

Seriousy?

I mean, seriously seriously?

People are genuinely arguing this as a point?

Just wait until we get consoles that display 1080p on 1080p TVs with AA.

Then all of a sudden the 'clean' look will be celebrated by the same people now pissing on the way PC games look.

 

[EatChildren]

Yep

Mother of God.

Mother of God.

Just wait until we get consoles that display 1080p on 1080p TVs with AA.

Then all of a sudden the 'clean' look will be celebrated by the same people now pissing on the way PC games look.

I'm seriously baffled at how people can argue this with genuine sincerity.

Even if I were to stoop into that argument, wouldn't the immense possibilities of PC hardware configurations, scalable game rendering options, and variety of displays units and their associated resolutions define the PC as platform where a certain look would be impossible to achieve? And that's not even touching the obvious and more important argument of rendering engines and art direction.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!

 

[Shurs]

Hold up.

People are seriously trying to argue that PC games have a certain 'look' about them?

Seriousy?

I mean, seriously seriously?

People are genuinely arguing this as a point?

Yep. They look better.

 

[Dennis]

For those keeping score, here are the people whose credibility have been destroyed beyond repair by this thread:

zoukka

Metalmurphy

nelsonroyale

DryvBy2

jett

 

[zoukka]

And yet you were just a while ago asserting realistic visual style, which no "professional artist would use", is objectively/factually worse. Not only that, but it was a "really simple" concept.

I'll have to quote myself here:

...my tastes.

Everyone has their preferences though.

It's just not appealing to me.

Unlike Brain-Stew here, I'm not expecting everyone to see things exactly the same way as me.

 

[brain_stew]

Just wait until we get consoles that display 1080p on 1080p TVs with AA.

Then all of a sudden the 'clean' look will be celebrated by the same people now pissing on the way PC games look.

They're already doing it right now, they just forget about it sometimes. Both Wipeout HD and GT5, put very few resources into post processing and advanced shading (far fewer than Crysis, for example) and instead spend most GPU cycles increasing the resolution, framerate and AA. Of course, these games are celebrated as the next messiah by the very same people that come out with this same inane "sterile and clean" BS.

 

[Zomba13]

Its interesting that you say that. I grew up playing PC games and have played them for at least 20 years but when the Xbox came out I switched to console. One of my best friends plays exclusively on PC and raves about the graphical fidelity but every time I look at his screen I cringe. It did not matter if he was playing Grid, or Half Life, or whatever but to me the textures looked too angular, to clean but not in a good way, too fake, and cartoony. This was very evident to me especially in games like Need For Speed Most wanted. I just preferred the console look which seemed more realistic or less like it was stiched together by angular textures and polys.

Its been like this for me since the old days. Console games I have felt always gave me a more immersive and believable feel. Subjectively it has been more important to me then higher resolutions and mod tools and this is why I think I switched to console. Even at a lower res I get a more immersive experience and I feel like things feel "realistic".

Really?
Like Really, really?
So you switched to consoles because of worse graphics? Because they are less clean and more blurry they are more realistic and immersive? Do you need glasses or something? I need glasses and I love my games like I see life clear and crisp (thanks to the magic of glasses). I mean when I take them off things are more blurry, more rounded, less angular (both on screens and in life) but I think it looks less real than when things look as they should, clean and crisp.

 

[brain_stew]

Unlike Brain-Stew here, I'm not expecting everyone to see things exactly the same way as me.

Not everything is subjective, why exactly can't you grasp this?

There is no "PC look", this is a fact and there is no debate about it at all. People that promote this idiocy don't need to be sheltered under the banner of "subjectivity" they should rightly be called out for posting blatant BS.

 

[syllogism]

I'll have to quote myself here:


Unlike Brain-Stew here, I'm not expecting everyone to see things exactly the same way as me.

Yes, you backpedaled a bit later, but that's definitely not how you presented it initially or at least you weren't consistent about it, given the "professional artist" remark

 

[Stop It]

Yep, and apparently anyone correcting them and calling them on this ridiculous BS is not allowed to because its going to hurt their feelings.

No, I can't believe it either. Never seen such a celebration of wilful ignorance and stupidity in a thread on GAF in all the time I've posted here and that's saying something.

Really? You've been a member of GAF as long as I have and I'm sure I've seen worse threads than this.

As stupid as it may sound, many people, especially when 6ft+ away like most people are when playing console games, do not notice the minutiae of detail and thus are easier to impress. Conversely most PC gamers still play (Although of course the comfy couch is now a viable option) much closer, and thus notice graphical flaws and lack of detail more than others.

Now, play GOW 3 at 6-8ft away and yes, it looks fucking awesome, yet when consolers compare it to Crysis (Just as a comparison, I know newer games do just as much) they look at it up close from their PC screen, which, often isn't as good as their HDTV and presto, it doesn't look as impressive.

Just a little project for anyone who honestly thinks that GOW 3 or UC2 looks better than Crysis (And we know there's a few people here who do): Get a few screenshots of Crysis, save them to a memory stick and put them on your PS3. Look at the screenshots on your HDTV at the same distance that you play your games on, tell me what you notice. Trust me, you'd be surprised.

Not everything is subjective, why exactly can't you grasp this?

There is no "PC look", this is a fact and there is no debate about it at all. People that promote this idiocy don't need to be sheltered under the banner of "subjectivity" they should rightly be called out for posting blatant BS.

I thought, of this generation of all of them with the 360 and PS3 using basic PC parts to quite a degree that this whole "PC look" as a criticism of PC games would be finally eliminated. Obviously not...

 

[Dennis]

I'll have to quote myself here:

Unlike Brain-Stew here, I'm not expecting everyone to see things exactly the same way as me.

Damn that brain_stew for his insistance on fact-based discussion.

 

[zoukka]

For those keeping score, here are the people whose credibility have been destroyed beyond repair by this thread:

Grow a pair. You've made great effort in dodging all replies to your accusations from many members.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm in the camp that says visuals combined with an artistic direction are better than raw power of visuals themselves.

 

[brain_stew]

Yes, you backpedaled a bit later, but that's definitely not how you presented it initially or at least you weren't consistent about it

Don't worry, consistency has no place in this thread. Back-pedalling, spin and FUD are all fair game................apparently.

Whatever happened to having the grace to admit when you're wrong and out of your depth? People that are able to do that, demand a lot more respect in my book.

 

[water_wendi]

i love this thread :lol

 

[Yasae]

Damn that brain_stew for his insistance on fact-based discussion.

Fact-based discussion does not happen on this forum. You should know better than that.

 

[Shambles]

Seeing these posts that claim Crysis is impossible to run clearly has never played it otherwise they would realize that simply turning off AA would make it run great on even mediocore systems.

 

[HK-47]

Didn't think Two World II could stir up this kind of prepubescent angst.:lol

Well when its being constantly shoved down your throat by a whiny, obnoxious salesman, I can see why.

Throw me in with the camp that thinks The Witcher 2 craps all over Two Worlds II in the art department.

 

[WillyFive]

I'm in the camp that says visuals combined with an artistic direction are better than raw power of visuals themselves.

Well, yes, that is what makes something look good. A trillion textures floating around with the best physics engine is pretty impressive, but it doesn't have to be pretty.

 

[EviLore]

The Witcher 2 shits all over everything.

 

[carlosp]

I can see where he is coming from. well I know that many (not all) but many pcs games have much much sharper then console games. I think this whole "other look" discussion has several reason. The first reason is basically the fact that PC games show a more clear image then console games. The second reason might be that usually (today i found out, that this is not true for GAF) people play their PC games on a PC monitor.

This means they only sit about 50 to mayb 80 cm away from their monitor. This means that they have a much better sight at what they see and combining that with the sharper image it can mean two things:

i) if there are ugly parts in the levels or even graphic glitches, even small one, you can see them much better.
ii) the much sharper image makes the artificialness of the graphics much more clear, the games, even if they try to look realistic fail at that approach and people see it and believe PC games look sterile or what ever.

Console games or more blurry, have a less detailed image and people sit about two meters away from the TV, for that reason they look "more realistic" or how you want to call it. I always found PC games to have a too sharp image and did not like it.

 

[EatChildren]

The Witcher 2 shits all over everything.

Not Octodad.

 

[H_Prestige]

I'm in the camp that says visuals combined with an artistic direction are better than raw power of visuals themselves.

And I am in the camp that says there is no difference between the two terms. Whatever is projected on screen either looks nice to you or it doesn't. The endless bitching and mudslinging in this thread is pathetic and reflects really poorly on everyone involved.

 

[Yasae]

i love this thread :lol

 

[Boss Man]

Here's an example from an older game (so it might be more obvious?):

GTA3 on PS2:

GTA3 on PC is a lot better graphically than the PS2 version:

But I definitely see what I call the "PC look" in it.

Now go up a console generation, and GTAIV on PS3 looks much cleaner on PS3 than GTA3 did on PS2 or PC. Look to the buildings:

The graphics became much sharper, but the "PC look" isn't there.

Finally, GTAIV on PC. Again, much better looking:

But there's just something there that's "angular" or something.


These examples are very clear to me, so if you agree/disagree/think I'm full of shit say so. That's about the best I can represent what I'm saying though. Just to be clear, I personally prefer the way the console version looks on both of those games- while acknowledging that technically they are objectively worse.

 

[zoukka]

Not everything is subjective, why exactly can't you grasp this?

Probably the same reason why you can't grasp that not everything is objective? And I'll say this again. I don't mind you correcting people. But ffs you always assume they are bullshitting and not actually experiencing the games like they say they are. Like there's this huge conspiracy against you :lol

 

[Dennis]

Well when its being constantly shoved down your throat by a whiny, obnoxious salesman, I can see why.

I love you too, man. You're all class.

As for The Witcher 2, I will judge that when I can, you know, actually play it.

 

[brain_stew]

I can see where he is coming from. well I know that many (not all) but many pcs games have much much sharper then console games. I think this whole "other look" discussion has several reason. The first reason is basically the fact that PC games show a more clear image then console games. The second reason might be that usually (today i found out, that this is not true for GAF) people play their PC games on a PC monitor.

This means they only sit about 50 to mayb 80 cm away from their monitor. This means that they have a much better sight at what they see and combining that with the sharper image it can mean two things:

i) if there are ugly parts in the levels or even graphic glitches, even small one, you can see them much better.
ii) the much sharper image makes the artificialness of the graphics much more clear, the games, even if they try to look realistic fail at that approach and people see it and believe PC games look sterile or what ever.

Console games or more blurry, have a less detailed image and people sit about two meters away from the TV, for that reason they look "more realistic" or how you want to call it. I always found PC games to have a too sharp image and did not like it.

So basically people are unable to recognise an apples-oranges comparison? I guess I overestimated the intelligence of the average GAFer then.

Of course people making these comparisons should be making them on the same display devices at the same resolutions, if you're unable to make that comparison then you shouldn't even be taking part in this debate.

 

[Yasae]

Not everything is subjective, why exactly can't you grasp this?

There is no "PC look", this is a fact and there is no debate about it at all. People that promote this idiocy don't need to be sheltered under the banner of "subjectivity" they should rightly be called out for posting blatant BS.

"OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Is this summation about right?

 

[Y2Kev]

Its interesting that you say that. I grew up playing PC games and have played them for at least 20 years but when the Xbox came out I switched to console. One of my best friends plays exclusively on PC and raves about the graphical fidelity but every time I look at his screen I cringe. It did not matter if he was playing Grid, or Half Life, or whatever but to me the textures looked too angular, to clean but not in a good way, too fake, and cartoony. This was very evident to me especially in games like Need For Speed Most wanted. I just preferred the console look which seemed more realistic or less like it was stiched together by angular textures and polys.

Its been like this for me since the old days. Console games I have felt always gave me a more immersive and believable feel. Subjectively it has been more important to me then higher resolutions and mod tools and this is why I think I switched to console. Even at a lower res I get a more immersive experience and I feel like things feel "realistic".

the textures looked too angular?

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Probably the same reason why you can't grasp that not everything is objective? And I'll say this again. I don't mind you correcting people. But ffs you always assume they are bullshitting and not actually experiencing the games like they say they are. Like there's this huge conspiracy against you :lol

You're the only one acting like anyone else is claiming things are black or white, subjective or objective. The argument here that PC graphics have some inherent difference compared to console graphics, which is factually incorrect. People who claim to see this difference though claim that "It's subjective." It isn't. No one saying that the "PC look" isn't real is claiming that there is no room for opinion.

 

[zoukka]

Yes, you backpedaled a bit later, but that's definitely not how you presented it initially or at least you weren't consistent about it, given the "professional artist" remark

I was talking about image composing yes. And it wasn't found in those TW shots in a manner I would prefer yes again. But I used the argument to explain WHY I didn't like the SCREENSHOTS because someone wanted to know. I was using it to explain something. You read way too much into it...

And I'm not doubting these artists at -whatever the studio is- know their basic art classes. For some reason they couldn't enforce it in TW. Be it it's scale or the things this one member said about exploring and hiding stuff in the foliage.

 

[brain_stew]

.A load of stupidity

Come back with an apples-apples comparison and then we'll talk.


Compare a modern game, at the same resolution, with the same gamma, in the same scene, with the same quality settings (AA/AF etc.) with direct feed images on the same display.

Then we'll talk.

 

[LCfiner]

what the flying fuck? :lol

Shit looks ANGULAR on PCs?

where’s this voxel-based console that I missed in stores?

 

[Ryuuga]

This thread makes me wish that Borys was still around.

 

[Dennis]

This thread makes me wish that Borys was still around.

We keep him in our hearts.

 

[[Nintex]]

These examples are very clear to me, so if you agree/disagree/think I'm full of shit say so. That's about the best I can represent what I'm saying though. Just to be clear, I personally prefer the way the console version looks on both of those games- while acknowledging that technically they are objectively worse.

Oh man, you'd LOVE the N64.

 

[zoukka]

You're the only one acting like anyone else is claiming things are black or white, subjective or objective. The argument here that PC graphics have some inherent difference compared to console graphics, which is factually incorrect. People who claim to see this difference though claim that "It's subjective." It isn't. No one saying that the "PC look" isn't real is claiming that there is no room for opinion.

I haven't touched the PC look discussion directly. And I agree that there isn't such thing. It's complete madness. But I still understand where this madness comes from.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

ho ho holy shit stateofmind and diglyd

you're like old people who turn down the resolution on their windows 2000 gateway pcs because high resolutions "make everything small"

 

[syllogism]

There you go again, talking about "basic art classes" and how they couldn't enforce "it", which is apparently something that should be enforced. Sounds awfully non-subjective.

 

[mrklaw]

I think I understand what people mean when they talk about the PC 'look'. I think it was more apparant 5-10 years ago, and less so now.

PC games used to (and still are to a degree) focused on resolution and framerate at the expense of everything else. So you could be running a game at 1600x1200 or something insane (for a while ago) so you had tiny pixels and crisp edges. There was less post-processing like you see on Killzone2 etc, as people wanted the resolution to show through - they wanted crispness if they had a good card capable of running at a high resolution.

These days with things like crysis etc, and shaders, there is less of this - but those Worlds II shots still shows it to a degree IMO.

Consoles differ because they are usually focused on a single target resolution, and optimised around that. You tend to see more use of post-processing and other effects designed to mask the resolution of the TV - people don't want to see the dots, they are used to the dots not being there when they watch TV/movies.


its a difficult thing to get across I guess, but I know what I mean

 

[brain_stew]

what the flying fuck? :lol

Shit looks ANGULAR on PCs?

where’s this voxel-based console that I missed in stores?

Forget that there's a bunch of PC games with tessellation producing character models with over an order of magnitude more triangles producing smoother edge than you'll ever see in a console game.

Look at this model, the sharp edges can practically put your eye out:

Ironically enough, polygon count is one of the last things to be pushed in PS3 exclusive software like GOW3 and KZ2, its the one area where they don't compare incredibly favourably to other console games.

 

[marathonfool]

I love how the mods took a dump on this thread and everyone is still playing in the feces.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

If you're saying you prefer fuzzy, low resolution graphics, great, good for you. You will be called a blind idiot, you should know this ahead of time.

 

[Kittonwy]

WTF are you people arguing about now?

Crysis was running FP16 HDR WITH AA and SSAO with destructability not seen in ANY console game even now, and it did it BACK IN 2007, if you're running better tech and you have a game that ACTUALLY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE TECH, all else being equal (e.g. art direction), your game is going to look better, we have cards capable of FP32 now, and can push way more pixels and polygons and more complex shaders than the current generation of consoles, we should be seeing "from the grounds up" PC games that blow the pants off console games, yet we're having this ridiculous argument.

The problem is you have plenty of up-ports on the PC that really doesn't fully take advantage of the hardware, you have plenty of ports on the PS3 that really weren't optimized, and we get mired in this pathetic argument which version of a game has better screen resolution, framerate and textures (those should be a given on the PC) when we're basically looking at gimped products. We're still dealing with outdated piece of shit technology like gamebryo, but as long as you can play Fallout New Vegas at a high resolution and image quality you're ok with having NONE of the features Crysis brought to the table, and yet consolites are the enemies?

And yeah Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 are no Crysis, most games aren't.

 

[zoukka]

There you go again, talking about "basic art classes" and how they couldn't enforce "it", which is apparently something that should be enforced. Sounds awfully non-subjective.

No. Every rule can be broken in art if needed. That's the beauty of it.

 

[jett]

For those keeping score, here are the people whose credibility have been destroyed beyond repair by this thread:

zoukka

Metalmurphy

nelsonroyale

DryvBy2

jett

*pats dennisk4 on the head*