EightBitNate
Member
I disagree. For every "bad" screenshot taken out of context, there are 4 amazing looking ones. All the gameplay videos look astonishing and nothing on PC looks better.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Visual Downgrade In Next-Gen Tech Demos Going From PC To Consoles?
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
I disagree. For every "bad" screenshot taken out of context, there are 4 amazing looking ones. All the gameplay videos look astonishing and nothing on PC looks better.
I suppose I would say that, if this were available on the PC, it would immediately stand out as one of the best looking games on the platform. Easily.
travisbickle
Member
Exhibit C: Deep Down
To be fair, a lot of the details seem to be from the sharpness of the image in picture 1. A lot can be lost with compression, I'd cross my fingers for this.
I'm simply struggling to come up with any other open world action games with that level of detail. The way people are talking I feel like I missed something on the PC. I'd love to play an open world game with that level of detail right now on my PC. Which games are there?
Sure, if you can find an instance where the tech demo was based off the same game. The real problem is tech demos being portrayed as games that you will be playing.
Your comparison is of completely different products by different teams, made with different engines..ect.
It was only an example, do you really need to argue that tech demos whether from the same game or not, are not representative to what the actual product will look like after all the elements that involve an actual game are in place like AI, Physics, collision detection, etc.
But if you insist....
Gears of War Berserker in tech demo
Berserker on high end PC in an actual game setting:
But in this case, why did this fresh apple turn into an rotten one? A valiant effort, but nowhere near the incredible minute details of the model in the tech demo, this is normal.
Atraveller
Banned
But it can run on a less powerful console, what?
Clearly not, as it has been downgraded. That's the point.
I don't think anything could run that original demo in realtime.
The Janitor
Member
Dictator93
Member
except for the computer it probably ran on...
I suppose that's true, but the performance sucks for me. :\GTA IV with mods
Do we have confirmation that it was even a realtime sequence and not an offline rendering?
biggersmaller
Banned
PC will always look better than anything else as the hardware is always advancing.
With a console your going for exclusives, value, and a single spec design ensures zero comparability issues and optimization.
It really is Ferrari vs Toyota. Why bother arguing otherwise?
With a console your going for exclusives, value, and a single spec design ensures zero comparability issues and optimization.
It really is Ferrari vs Toyota. Why bother arguing otherwise?
Why bother arguing? Well, because it was never like this until recently. Consoles used to represent major leaps forward in game visuals. I miss those days.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Literally the same exact thing could (and should) be said about Second Son. For example, someone posted a Second Son vs Sleeping Dogs screenshot comparison. You could copy/paste your post in response to it and it would fit (in video form vs screenshot), but all this is ignored because it doesn't fit their argument.
symphonask
Member
At the current state they're showing it off?
-Lots of aliasing
-Extremely low LOD/ poor texture filtering - to the point where textures 5 feet away from the character are muddied
-Obvious placeholder textures/models - i.e. background buildings/ 2D trees
Sure, I think it'll be a good looking game when it comes out. But it's clearly a WIP and you can pick lots of things out from what they're showing now.
Here are some screengrabs from the latest video showing what I mean. Video is 400mb 1080p from gamersyde.
I think once WatchDogs or GTAV hits PC and people run them at the highest settings, they will easily give Infamous SS a run for its money.
Right, they'll give it a run for its money, but not destroy it. Even ignoring comparisons, I find it hard to believe that someone would find it wholly unimpressive.
Also, even with incredibly high quality footage, it's very difficult to capture all of the finer details and it seems to me that a lot of textures are being destroyed by the video there. It should look much cleaner in person. High frequency detail is often destroyed by such recordings. Hopefully it will be playable at Gamecom this year as I'd like to see it in person.
The texture filtering should be fine, however. I fully believe that is the fault of the video rather than a problem with the game, but we'll see.
Also, even with incredibly high quality footage, it's very difficult to capture all of the finer details and it seems to me that a lot of textures are being destroyed by the video there. It should look much cleaner in person. High frequency detail is often destroyed by such recordings. Hopefully it will be playable at Gamecom this year as I'd like to see it in person.
Lots of aliasing? Compared to what? Super sampled shots? Not exactly a fair comparison.
The texture filtering should be fine, however. I fully believe that is the fault of the video rather than a problem with the game, but we'll see.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
So are you saying that there is no PC that could run those games if they weren't Sony property?
And we dont have to, You can generate enough draw calls on PC for every game.
Yeah no, most of 'tasks' do not even perform 20% better on closed architecture, let alone 2x or 100x. Yeah You can sometimes use special features to achieve in some situation few times better performance, but those are very rare and minor situations.
TheBioLover
Member
Killzone ShadowFall also looks better than any PC game, imo.
fuzzyreactor
Banned
agreed, game looks ridic. 1st trailer still drops my jaw
ColonelColon
Member
Whoa, the LOD looks really bad in those shots. Those trees... and the building textures... wtf?
So You are trolling now?
I think Infamous looks nice, but tech is pretty average in this game, for example game has lower shadow draw distance than Crysis 3 on lowest settings. I'm sorry, but thats not a good tech. Also very aggressive LoD and no AA on particles which makes geometry very jagged sometimes.
KZ:SF do not look good currently.
Video captures. That specific sort of detail can be easily destroyed by it (texture detail, I mean).
It does have particle shadows, though, which are quite demanding.
Wait, what? It does not look good? It doesn't need to be the BEST looking game to still look good, though. Come on, that's just ridiculous. You guys sound as insane as the console-only folks that claim they crush modern PCs.
GTA IV with mods
Holy jeebus, is that playable?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
So Killzone could never run on that level on any PC right?
Dictator93
Member
Barack Lesnar
Banned
There's no way the game will look that crappy. Look how blurry and unsharpened those screens are, they look terrible. That video quality is awful. Doesn't matter if it's a 1080p vid from gamersyde, the source feed is awful. Look at all that blur and compression.
Nobody is saying that.
Fact of the matter is that there aren't any PC exclusives being made that will target ultra high-end specs, so the fact that PCs can run it is completely irrelevant.
He doesn't know any better.
That said, I think it actually does hold up against some of the best looking shooters on PC and would be at home on the platform. There aren't very many PC shooters that look overall more impressive, I'd argue. Crysis 3 is about the only one that comes to mind.
If it were released on the PC you don't think it would hold up against the competition? I feel as if the game is being unfairly shit on as a reaction to some other people over-estimating it.
Because a lack of compression is suddenly gonna make those textures higher resolution and make the game have less pop-in and a higher draw distance and let's not forget AF.
biggersmaller
Banned
I fully agree with the latter - disagree with the former.
More often than not, consoles lagged behind what PC had to offer. To treat this as historic is not correct.
The Janitor
Member
Yep, I think it runs better on Nvidia though due to Boris only developing his ENB with a Nvidia card
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o-ojTM6tCE&hd=1
symphonask
Member
Yeah, if anything, a higher quality capture will accentuate those blemishes.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Look at the textures in those screens, they look like they're from the first couple years of this gen. Hell, a couple 360 launch games had better looking textures compared to those screens. There's no possible way they wlll look that blurry and unsharpened. We have seen direct feed screens that prove otherwise.
That has more to do with this video being a WIP which means that the final game will have higher quality assets but my point was that a direct feed from that exact video will not remove any of the bad stuff i mentioned.
Bullshit.
When it came to gaming performance, it was most certainly not the case.
PCs have always had image quality advantages but that's about it.
16-bit consoles ran circles around PCs available in the late 80s/early 90s when it came to pushing tiles around the screen at 60 fps. The first 3D capable consoles definitely out muscled the PC for a while and the first year of the PS2 demonstrated all sorts of visual tricks and techniques that wouldn't really appear on the PC for a couple of years.
There was a wow factor you got from new consoles that PCs COULD NOT match. When the PS2 was first around PC games typically sported very low geometry counts, few effects, and unsteady framerates combined with higher resolution textures and better image quality.
It was a different time. PCs were general purpose machines with more capabilities, but they were often slower in the areas which fast paced games demanded. Doom was released YEARS into the lifespan of the Genesis and SNES and, even at that point, 60 fps 2D platformers with parallax where rare and difficult to achieve on hardware from that day.
It WILL fix the textures as they ARE higher resolution than that video suggests. The detail is lost in the compression.
Only the pop-in can be judged by those shots. Do you really think those accurately represent the game? You're being silly if so.
I've got to stay away from threads like this. I've noticed that these games are getting less and less impressive the closer to release they get.
They look good, but looking at maxed actual game footage from something like Project CARS on PC these other exclusives are starting to look bland, and that game is in pre-alpha development.
They look good, but looking at maxed actual game footage from something like Project CARS on PC these other exclusives are starting to look bland, and that game is in pre-alpha development.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
We haven't seen any representative direct feed screens of Infamous actually. They have all been rendered out at 4k or higher.
IBM-based PCs were kind of shit for gaming in the 80s, I'll give you that, but home computers like the Amiga trashed the consoles in gaming performance.
While that may be true, those 4k screens will more accurately represent the quality of the assets. The textures in those 4k shots are the same textures we're seeing in those videos but the video completely obscures all of the detail as a result of shitty compression.
Neither the 4k shots nor those captures accurately represent the game.
Oh no they did not. Absolutely not.
The absolute best Amiga platformers feature nowhere NEAR the same level of parallax and detail that you could see on Genesis and SNES.
We have seen other footage that suggests that this game doesn't look as good as they want us to believe (like in the reveal trailer).
That's not to say that what they showed us was fake, rather it was rendered at a way higher resolution with lot's of other stuff turned up full blast or things that only appear in cutscenes like higher quality models.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
^^ This. Think about it for a second. Do you think downscaling from 4k suddenly adds all those details to the textures?
Except the Amiga came out in the US the same year as the NES. Those machines were a full generation later, and the Genesis hardware was the same CPU the Amiga used with a less-capable graphics renderer.
The Amiga 1200 came out the same year as the SNES in a lot of countries, and again, was far more powerful.
Edit - and even if you gin up some excuse as to how these are not valid, or come up with a crumb of a date where the consoles were first, there was still never a point where consoles had mind-blowing never-before-seen graphical capabilities unless you ignore the giant elephant in the room that was the Arcades back then.
biggersmaller
Banned
Cool, let's leave the obvious advantage of visuals behind. There were countless RTS, adventure, flight, and FPS games that you would find either exclusive to - or most enjoyable on PC during the 16 bit era.
Beyond that era, there was nothing like Quake on the consoles in early '96.
Nothing like Half Life on consoles in '98.
Now, you can make the argument that there were awesome console experiences that were not available on PC, but like I said - to say that console games were always ahead of PC when launched until this gen in not correct.
It may have been more powerful on paper but those results rarely showed up in games.
That's really my issue. The vast majority of Amiga games, with some exceptions, typically failed to match what you could find on SNES or even Genesis. Those consoles could throw around a lot of sprites with complex parallax scrolling and a wide range of colors in the case of the SNES. The Amiga really struggled to match the consoles in this area and couldn't easily duplicate those types of platform games.
Of course, the Amiga could evolve with more powerful hardware and some games could use that hardware. On average, though? I really didn't see it.
It was light years beyond the PC in regards to such things, however.
You're misunderstanding. That's not what I said.
I said, at launch, consoles offered hardware and visuals beyond anything you could get on the PC at that time. I wasn't suggesting that they offered BETTER games, necessarily, just more impressive looking. They would show us new things at high speeds that the PC would eventually be capable of offering but did not at that time.
I WAS primarily a PC gamer during those days. I loved PC games but it was always clear that it was behind consoles in terms of pushing new technology just as consoles were behind the arcade scene. Quake may have outdone Saturn and PlayStation in 1996 but those consoles had been originally released in 1994. The type of 3D they delivered in 94 was simply not possible at that speed on the PC. That's what I was getting at. It has nothing to do with the quality of the games nor the genres.
Oh, arcades were THE premiere place during that time. Consoles followed shortly after with PCs behind that.
Though, when the PS2 hit, that was doing things we hadn't seen in arcades or on the PC.
So you're saying consoles were better than PC's at some point?
Do we get to call you an elitist console gamer now?
That's how it works here right?
I'm talking about direct feeds they've released from Forest demo, they look really bad.
Nah, you don't need supersampling for competent AA (though it helps a lot!). There are many options better than the pure post-processing drek you get built-in these days.
Uhh, did you even read what I wrote? That comment was suggesting that the Amiga was light years better at handling sprites and parallax than the IBM PC of that era.
Really bad? Not as nice as the city areas, but still solid.
Based on this, I think it looks really nice.
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_killzone_shadow_fall_e3_trailer-30219_en.html
Again, the Amiga was a contemporary of the NES. Not the Genesis or the SNES. The NES.
Also, Arcades existed.
There may have been one brief sliver of time when a console came out with truly wow-factor visuals, and that was the window between the PS1 launch and the release of the 3dfx voodoo card. Looking back now, those games looked like complete dogshit honestly, but they were shocking at the time.