-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Where's proof of PC games doing PS4/XBO graphics for years now?
- Thread starter JordanN
- Start date
- Status
Portugeezer
Member
Here's Metro 2033, which came out in Spring of 2010.
Maybe not quite as nice as the best of PS4/Xbone, but certainly in a similar ballpark. 4 years ago.
I didn't think so when I played it. Looked great, but it was quite inconsistent graphics wise.
It definitely doesn't take 3k to make Crysis 3 run on max settings at 1080P.
SteveWinwood
Member
if pc gamers have to use mods and tech demos (things the developers obviously didn't intend and couldn't do themselves) to prove their point they have already lost
op still wins
games are meant to be in a closed box, pure and vanilla
op still wins
games are meant to be in a closed box, pure and vanilla
CaptainTiptop
Member
But... we already know Resogun and inFamous run at 1080p.
"I want to see PC games destroy next gen games. Except when using graphical features that I say don't count."
op wins
By providing gifs of cutscenes and no actual gameplay other than a 2d side scroller.
Yeah.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
Specifically in the title. "For Years Now". So yeah, picking a game from today would be out of the goalposts he set from the OP.
Name one example of a console owner saying this, other than a Wii owner. PS360 owners have been dying for a new gen.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
can we have a rule against using tiny ass gifs that are 5 seconds long to prove anything about graphics
I was just trying to address the "for years now" rather than posting something released in the past year. It's not quiiiiite there, but it wouldn't be considered completely terrible if it released on PS4 or Xbox One today. And it's 4 years old.
I agree with OP. Games that looked "next gen"-ish years ago like Battlefield 3 and Metro Last Light were outliers, not the norm.
For the most part, PC games haven't been doing PS4/XBO graphics because they didn't need to-- in that way, the majority of AAA PC games raise the bar along with consoles. PC devs COULD create games that require dual titans that could look like a console game from two generations into the future but why do that when the mass market isn't there yet? It'd just be a massive waste of money.
I've enjoyed amazing looking PC ports the past two years but it's largely due to much higher resolution and frame rate. Not many games offered advanced lighting and effects to the extent that games will now.
For the most part, PC games haven't been doing PS4/XBO graphics because they didn't need to-- in that way, the majority of AAA PC games raise the bar along with consoles. PC devs COULD create games that require dual titans that could look like a console game from two generations into the future but why do that when the mass market isn't there yet? It'd just be a massive waste of money.
I've enjoyed amazing looking PC ports the past two years but it's largely due to much higher resolution and frame rate. Not many games offered advanced lighting and effects to the extent that games will now.
100% positive that Steve is trolling.
Run Crysis 1 at max settings, if you can. Over six years old.
this is a pc game
OP wins. Sorry, guys.
Why not, when the gifs in OP's post are half cutscenes?
And mods are fair game because they are an intrinsic strength of the pc platform.
maniac-kun
Member
Well there is still Battlefield 3 which looks pretty close the next-gen stuff.
Those massive particles are new tho. I still dont see the point in this thread.
Those massive particles are new tho. I still dont see the point in this thread.
SilentRacoon
Member
Nope, the only thing they are proving is that most of the faults OP points out exist because of lazy developers and half assed ports.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Lighting, AA, AF, resolution, tessellatation and frame rate for starters.
Well, let's put it this way: Now that devs are actually making content for more powerful hardware, we'll see these same graphics on PC, without having to upgrade our hardware. Thus proving that the systems are, in fact, plenty capable of it. The problem, as has been noted, is that developers don't actually make games specifically for PC any more, everything is made for the consoles and then simply ported. So we get shiny 1080p/60 versions of console games, but that's obviously the majority of what we have.
Pops Maellard
Member
You're right. My $399 PS4 has games that cost me $60, and my $900 PC has Steam sales and 35% off preorders from Green Man Gaming.
I own over 200 PC games. I own 2 PS4 games and about 20 360 games.
A closed box? So TF2 should have never gone F2P, added 40 something maps and gamemodes, added hats and created a new currency? So Deus Ex should have just been forgotten once it was no longer playable on newer PCs? So Dark Souls should have remained broken on PC? So CONSOLE GAMES shouldn't get patches at all and DLC?
What delusional world are you living in?
So people you dont know are keeping you from experiencing something you think you'd really enjoy? You can come up with a better excuse than that. Even if I hated Sony or Nintendo fans, I wouldnt use that as a reason not to get onboard if there were games i wanted to play.That just seems childish.
EightBitNate
Member
It's not as if PS4 and XO games aren't out yet. We know what Killzone and Ryse look like. It's not myth or fabrication. Next-gen is capable of output not available on PCs of yesteryear.
The point is, if you have to show modded games prove there were PC games with PS4 level graphics years ago, it only goes to show there weren't many games with PS4 level graphics.
And there weren't really. Console has been the lead platform for years, and that is partly the reason.
I understand not counting tech demos but I still don't see how mods don't count if people are able to use them on playable games.
If the developers decided not to put those enhancements in a game it's not because the hardware wasn't capable of it or anything. It's because they decided it wasn't worth it from a money or business perspective. If it weren't for that, almost all console ports from the last several years probably could have had vastly superior graphics than they did. In fact if actual consumers are able to enhance a game's graphics than that should prove the point even more, as it didn't even take professional developers to make a game's graphics look super impressive.
But does a console being the lead platform actually make that console better?
Waiting for the Internet 2 to be ready as a launch title.
Zalusithix
Member
Mods are pretty much an intrinsic part of PC gaming.If they don't count, then you might as well forbid graphics options outside of the default ones set the first time you start the game. Just because you can't do something on a console doesn't negate their application on the PC.
ohbabyitsken
Banned
You forgot proper v-sync.
JordanN
Banned
Lighting is better?
I believe Driveclub has actual HDR and depth of field. Environments also look more detailed.
It's in the OP
"2) you've probably seen games run on PC in the last couple years"
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Steve I think you are too good at pulling chains man, haha.
I came to this topic for the Dennis screenshots. I have not been disappointed.
Vire
Member
I thought you were going back to your Steam thread?
Fun Factor
Formerly FTWer
Those games look quite pathetic compared to Battlefield 3 & 4 or the current crop of PS4/XB1 games imo.
I guess heavily heavily heavily graphical modded Skyrim, Crysis & GTAIV count as looking like next gen years before next gen arrived, but the framerates for them become complete & utter shit. (sub 20 & 10 fps).
SteveWinwood
Member
tf2 is always better vanilla
they just used updates and excuse to bring pay to win and complete unbalance to the whole game and you pc gamers fell for it hook line and sinker
the console versions are of course superior simply because they are pure
not to mention its cartoony so it already lost to a superior first person experience like call of duty
Trailer footageLighting is better?
I believe Driveclub has actual HDR and depth of field. Environments also look more detailed.
It's in the OP
"2) you've probably seen games run on PC in the last couple years"
Lighting is better?
I believe Driveclub has actual HDR and depth of field. Environments also look more detailed.
It's in the OP
"2) you've probably seen games run on PC in the last couple years"
Colonial Marines looked pretty good before that came out too.
Clarkus Darkus
Member
Well the OP is right, My PC wouldn't run anything decent at all from the last few years, My laptop basically has a current gen GPU, My ps4 will play next-gen games. My PC-laptop wont without considerable upgrades. I think that's the point of the OP anyway.
I think that's why devs focus on consoles, As PC gamers all have different CPU/GPU/RAM etc wheras on console they can perfect the game and squeeze every inch of power from them.
I think that's why devs focus on consoles, As PC gamers all have different CPU/GPU/RAM etc wheras on console they can perfect the game and squeeze every inch of power from them.
Lord of Castamere
Member
You win the thread.
Some Nobody
Junior Member
No need for an excuse. I can build a computer no problem, it's not an especially hard task. But I do find the superiority complexes grating. Mind, hating fans in my other hobbies (comics, anime, etc.) hasn't stopped me from participating in them either, I guess.
Really? Because it sounds like something you could find if you dug around long enough.
- Status