Support NeoGAF

[LucidMomentum]

Now granted I was running this on an i5-2500k and dual GTX 760s, but this is an old screenshot from a couple years ago:

And this is a more current screenshot from a few months ago, with a 4790k and dual GTX 980s:

Just for reference. PC also has access to modding capabilities for a lot of games, which helps Crysis 2 look as good as it does in the above screenshot.

Honestly, it depends on the game and your budget / time spent on tweaking things.

For example, here's how my Dark Souls II looks:

Compared to consoles:

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Big enough to seem like a stark contrast to videophiles, small enough that the average person won't notice unless they're forced to sit and analyze it at length.

 

[johnnydrama]

I still think The Last of Us on PS3 looked better than anything on PC back then, it was kinda overwhelming how beautiful the game was, but that's just my opinion.

Not even close lol. Crysis 3 on PC alone was a generation ahead of the console versions.

 

[Occam]

Not big enough to give up basic ownership rights.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

For example, here's how my Dark Souls II looks:

Compared to consoles:

Seriously? Comparing two completely different areas? Come on son.

 

[Javin98]

I still think The Last of Us on PS3 looked better than anything on PC back then, it was kinda overwhelming how beautiful the game was, but that's just my opinion.

Definitely the difference will get bigger, no doubt about that, by the end of this gen PCs should handle 4k with mid-range GPUs easily.

Come on, dude, no offence, but are you from the System Wars forums of Gamespot or something? TLOU may be the best looking game on the PS3, but is sure as hell wasn't ahead of the PC games that were pretty demanding visually. In fact, some would even say those PC games look a generation ahead. And this is coming from someone who loves TLOU and considers it the GOTG.

 

[Mohonky]

Big enough to seem like a stark contrast to videophiles, small enough that the average person won't notice unless they're forced to sit and analyze it at length.

Tell me how much difference there is between the Xbone and PS4.....

 

[Zia]

Not big enough to give up basic ownership rights.

You own the license, just like on consoles? You must really hate stuff like PS Plus.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

You own the license, just like on consoles? You must really hate stuff like PS Plus.

I don't think that can be a serious post.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Tell me how much difference there is between the Xbone and PS4.....

Three pounds of flax.

 

[Kudo]

A lot of times "in my opinion" also means "in my not-fully-informed opinion" tho. There was definitely stuff out at the time that was at the very least technically far ahead from TLoU, and since TLoU aims at a realistic aesthetic it makes sense that technical proficiency could mean it looks a lot better. If you're just saying aesthetically you find the art style more appealing sure, but it really wasn't ahead in a technical respect in comparison.

You're right. I meant the graphics as whole and not just technical aspect, art style etc. included. I guess there is better word to use there but can't think of one. Of course I was aware PC is already capable of much higher resolutions back then and to some, it's the amount of pixels drawn that only count.
Even to this day I think TLoU is one of the best looking games.

 

[DocGaf]

I happen to own BF4 on XB1, PS4 and the PC.

XB1 to my eyes looks better than the PS4 version. My wife who doesn't play games at all thought so as well. My son thought the XB1 version looked better until I told him it was the XB1 version then he changed his mind and said he thought the PS4 version looked better. (Fan Boi) I did the comparison with the monitors sitting side by side with each playing B4 at the same time.
The PC looks the best. It looks more crisp and has more detail.

Performance its hard to say. Maybe a little less slow down when there is a lot of stuff going on on screen with the PS4 compared to the XB1 but there were so many issues with BF4 it's hard to say what the problem was. Once the game got some of the maps fixed I didn't really notice the difference during play.
Like I never really found myself playing on the XB and thinking to myself the gameplay was better on the PS4.
Now with the PC version if you have a reasonable setup during actual game play the movement is much more smooth and the extra details can make some of the maps seem very pretty indeed.

I still ended up playing on the XB1 most of the time unless I wanted to play together with someone on another system.

 

[Finaika]

For example, here's how my Dark Souls II looks:

Compared to consoles:

Holy shit!

 

[VGA222]

The difference can vary depending on how you view the game. Plasma TVs in my experience will mitigate a lot of the graphical differences between a high end PC and a console. However on a LCD monitor the differences are incredibly pronounced. Upscaling artifacts, aliasing, poor texturing filtering, and a small draw distance are all very noticeable and somewhat distracting when playing on an LCD monitor.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

Quick PC gaming question:
Last time I seriously played games on PC was around the 486/Pentium era(s).
I remember it being a total pain in the ass. You had to tinker around with tons of settings and even hardware to get games running decently the way YOU wanted.

How is it now?

It's still like that but a lot better, don't let anyone tell you any different. I mean you don't need to make a bootable DOS floppy to play a game anymore, but you still run into major problems where some games flat out don't work.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

The difference is so big I can play the Definitive Edition of current gen console games a whole 5 years before they release.

 

[Mister Wolf]

I look forward to playing Dark Souls 3 at 1080p 60fps.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Not even close lol. Crysis 3 on PC alone was a generation ahead of the console versions.

The console versions of Crysis 3, perhaps. That's a little different to what he said, though. Personally, when Beyond: Two Souls released, I had never seen character models so detailed anywhere, including PC (and you're talking to a guy that had dual Titans and the 4960X when that game released).

That said, until Battlefield: Hardline, Metro: Last Light remained the best looking game I had ever seen. Maxed out on PC, it remained ahead of even Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, and Killzone: Shadowfall by late 2013.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

MGSV is a poor comparison to use IMO, it has some noticeable last gen roots and I don't think it's a miracle that it runs at 60FPS on consoles as some try to make it out to be.

It's crazy to me to think that a $300 GPU is considered mid range. And yet PC gamers don't get the reason why people assume PC gaming requires a costly setup.

A $300 GPU that can run circles around the $400 PS4, it's basically the equivalent of two PS4 GPUs and then some. The 970 would be the upper mid-range while the 960 is the lower mid, while the 980 was the "high-end" card and is now the lower high-end due to the 980Ti which is closer to what the 980 probably should've been in the first place. The thing is the performance gap between the 970 and 980 isn't close to being as big as it should be for the price difference.

The Titan series is in its own category and was intended for a different market.

 

[Kezen]

I look forward to playing Dark Souls 3 at 1080p 60fps.

Me too, but we will have to be patient.

 

[Renekton]

A $300 GPU that can run circles around the $400 PS4, it's basically the equivalent of two PS4 GPUs and then some.

BoM to BoM.

The PS4 APU is around $110.

70% of that APU die is devoted to GPU.

 

[GamerJM]

I'll be honest, as someone with vision problems, whenever someone posts a digital foundry article or something the differences are hard for me to notice, though they're still definitely there. I realize the reason for that is obvious (I have vision problems), but I mean, the jump from something like PS1->DreamCast was totally obvious for me.

For the record I feel sort of the same way about 360/PS3 -> PS4/X1.

You own the license, just like on consoles? You must really hate stuff like PS Plus.

Not the guy you were responding to (though I feel somewhat similarly), but for the record, I do hate stuff like PS+. The more consoles go into games as a service the more I'm going to just collect games for retro consoles.

 

[icecold1983]

assuming an infinitely powerful pc, the biggest difference at this point in every title is aa/res/iq and framerate.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

BoM to BoM.

The PS4 APU is around $110.

70% of that APU die is devoted to GPU.

BoM is irrelevant, the console is $400 retail, the 970's BoM isn't $300 either and I wasn't including the CPU since anyone who's built a PC in the last five years already has a better CPU in their PC than what's in the PS4. It only gets tricky when it comes to pre-builts that aren't geared toward being a gaming platform.

 

[CyberPunked]

On a side note people need to stop citing Metro as being a good example of any visual superiority. I played both games at launch almost maxed on my system and they are so inconsistent they can hardly be declared the best at anything. They have great "moments" but by and large I think they are unimpressive looking games.

C'mon, man. TLOU looked alright but it's not really a competition.

 

[Fahrenheit]

It's all about the frame rate for me, once you go 60 (or better yet 120) refresh its so damn hard to go back. Dark Souls games are what really showed me the light, played both games on consoles first. Going back through the game at 60fps made it feel so much better. Things look so crisp and clear at higher frame rates. Love the fact most PC ports let me turn off that motion blur that devs use on consoles to cover frame rate issues. So yeah, huge jump on PC, at least for me. It's so important to me i'll be skipping DS3 till the PC version is out.

 

[Jedipottsy]

The biggest problem with comparing apples to apples, is the apples themselves. Most multiplat games are made with consoles primarily, so assets and level design, lighting engines etc are all designed for consoles, and then last minute given a slight polish for pc, so all we get is things like higher textures, higher shadow resolution, some nifty additions such as HBAO+ and gameworks, but generally speaking, models aren't of higher quality, and lighting isnt of higher quality etc. There are also few (i.e. star citizen) PC only games being created that are purely about being graphics powerhouses (i.e. crysis 1)

But if you were to compare the gap between a well created ps4 game and a well created pc game, there would be no contest. The power difference is orders of magnitude greater. (even with api limitations, but once dx12/vulkan, that gap is going to widen further)

 

[RealityCheque]

More expensive initial outlay, probably cheaper over the long run as games are way cheaper.

And anyone who says "oh noes, viruses" "mouse and keyboard, no controller blah blah fucking blah", doesn't know anything about PC gaming. It is as versatile as you want it to be, and as safe as using any normal computer.

The graphics are better, the framerates are way better. That last one is the big deal-maker for me. Before I had it, I never realized how valuable 60+ FPS was to me.

 

[Naedtrax]

I think the main problem when people compare is the fact they compare 1080p to 1080p and leave it at that. A lot of people don't know about downsampling and how much of an improvement it can bring to visual fidelity if you don't already own a 1440p/4k monitor.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Now while I know this will never happen, I was thinking the other day about how consoles gain a lot from optimization and got to thinking that PC might be better cutting down on the number of different hardware variations, so PC games can benefit from better optimization too.

Maybe offering 3 or 4 different GPU specs (Low, Medium, High and maybe Ultra spec) in the space of a year, because PC hardware never gets pushed to it's maximum potential and it would allow developers to not worry about a million different specs and put more time into optimizing their games and pushing for even better graphics on PC.

I always find it amazing how devs like Naughty Dog can make a game like Uncharted 4 look so damn good on a lower, fixed spec machine, compared to a higher end PC anyway. Uncharted 4 might not have the best textures / lighting ect, compared to some PC titles but the combination of elements put together, especially the animation, make Uncharted 4 look like something on a different level to most games.

Now while a high end PC could easily run a game like Uncharted 4, you never seem to see PC exclusive games go to that same level though, which seems like wasted potential when you look at how much more powerful a PC can be.

Some of it is down to how talented a dev is (Naughty Dog have some of the best talent in the business) but PC having so many different hardware combos (while mostly good) does have it's flaws too. A game made only for an Ultra spec PC would likely be amazing but it just doesn't happen.

 

[icecold1983]

C'mon, man. TLOU looked alright but it's not really a competition.

not that i agree at all with TLOU looking better than late gen7 pc games, but i do agree that metro is very unimpressive like 95% of the time. people post the same screens of the same small handful of areas that look good. usually its just a bunch of ugly interior sections with poor materials. the character models and animation are also just awful. metro games have decent lighting tech and good shadow tech, but the art is mostly awful.

 

[sprinkles]

I still think The Last of Us on PS3 looked better than anything on PC back then, it was kinda overwhelming how beautiful the game was, but that's just my opinion.

I remember having to force myself playing through the game. The low resolution really made the game look dated. My opinion of course, I had just built a new PC in the spring that year and Crysis 3 graphics had blown my mind.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

If I had to pick one platform, I'd go PC with the caveat that it would have to be a pretty hefty one in order to balance missing out on console specific exclusives (like Destiny/Halo/Uncharted etc).

Having said that, I reckon you would be better off getting both a PS4 and a slightly cheaper PC, then at least you would be covered on everything except X1 exclusives (which will be making more appearances on Windows 10 due to the new integration of OS/Console.

 

[JordanKZ]

If you had an apples to apples comparison, which is honestly quite difficult, the biggest difference on PC usually comes down to:

• Lighting/shadow quality
• Antialiasing quality
• Resolution
• Frame rate
• Level of detail
• Draw distances

With a console game, you're probably locked to 720p or 1080p, 30 or 60fps. With a PC, if you really had the muscle, you could be rocking far higher detail levels at greater distances, at 4K/144hz. It's not impossible, but it requires a real monster and a very well coded engine.

My PC cost me something like £3000 (inc. monitor) around 18 months ago, and I already replaced the graphics card (780Ti SLI > Titan X). But I'm an idiot who wants the best of the best. But I don't have to pay for online play, games are usually cheaper and such, so it works out.

 

[Kezen]

but i do agree that metro is very unimpressive like 95% of the time..

I think the exact same thing about The Last of Us. This game failed to make an impression on me when it comes to visuals, I didn't find the art direction impressive at all.

I much preferred Last Light's world building and visually it looked excellent overall in spite of rather ugly characters.

 

[Langdon Alger]

BoM is irrelevant, the console is $400 retail, the 970's BoM isn't $300 either and I wasn't including the CPU since anyone who's built a PC in the last five years already has a better CPU in their PC than what's in the PS4. It only gets tricky when it comes to pre-builts that aren't geared toward being a gaming platform.

You have to compare the price of an entire PC to a PS4 to make a fair comparison. You aren't going to be able to buy a $400 PC that can run games that look as good as games look on a PS4.

 

[Renekton]

BoM is irrelevant, the console is $400 retail, the 970's BoM isn't $300 either and I wasn't including the CPU since anyone who's built a PC in the last five years already has a better CPU in their PC than what's in the PS4. It only gets tricky when it comes to pre-builts that aren't geared toward being a gaming platform.

It's a very dishonest comparison then.

GPU cannot run a game by itself.

 

[icecold1983]

I think the exact same thing about The Last of Us. This game failed to make an impression on me when it comes to visuals, I didn't find the art direction impressive at all.

I much preferred Last Light's world building and visually it looked excellent overall in spite of rather ugly characters.

i dont think much of TLOU visuals, uncharted 2 and 3 were much better. that said, TLOU has much better art than metro. the character models look and animate far better in TLOU. theres really just no excuse for that. pcs were over 10x more powerful than ps3 in 2013.

 

[Krisprolls]

Well I just built a relatively decent PC, but tbh I'm quite disappointed.
I skimped on the CPU, but everything else is as much as I could afford.
AMD X4 860K CPU, Overclocked to 4.5GHz and a Cooler Master Hyper EVO cooler
MSI A88XM Gaming Motherboard
MSI R9 390 GPU
16GB 2400 Corsair Vengeance RAM
256GB Sandisk Pro SSD
1TB WD Black HDD

plus lots of fans a 650W EVGA PSU and a swanky case.

I play around 8 foot away from a 55" 1080P Sony Bravia TV, and games just don't look that much better, certainly not to the degree that PC gamers were telling me it would look.

I have GTA V, and everything is on Very high or ultra, draw distance & population on max etc, using about 4.5GB of VRAM (card has 8GB) and sure it looks a little cleaner and a bit smoother than on my Xbox one, but £700 better? Nope, not a chance.

I imagine if I had a 4K TV or monitor it would be a different story, but for 1080P I'd advise sticking to console.

Yes, it just looks the same to 99.9 % of people, it's just the 0.1 % left are very vocal here on GAF.

That's the problem with taking advice from nerds / passionate people before buying. You don't get the balanced opinions.

I've got money, I can buy dozens more gaming PC, but it's just not worth it anymore now with diminishing returns so I stopped with PCs. You just don't get enough for your money.

If it cost $100 or $150 (with every cost included like monitor and everything) then I would buy another gaming PC, that's what this small visual upgrade over console is worth FOR ME, not more.

 

[Javin98]

C'mon, man. TLOU looked alright but it's not really a competition.

Agreed. I feel as if Metro Last Light doesn't get enough love for its visuals. It looks amazing, aside from the rather dated character models for humans, at least.

I think the exact same thing about The Last of Us. This game failed to make an impression on me when it comes to visuals, I didn't find the art direction impressive at all.

I much preferred Last Light's world building and visually it looked excellent overall in spite of rather ugly characters.

Well, to be fair, art direction is very subjective. Some like it, others think it looks hideous. Personally, I think TLOU's art direction is wonderful. It really fits well with the theme and story of the game.

Visually, it looks amazing for a PS3 game, but yeah, not very impressive compared to the best on PC. I can understand how someone who is used to 1080p or higher res can find it ugly, but the PS4 version has much better IQ, although many of its assests still show its last gen roots.

 

[StevieP]

You have to compare the price of an entire PC to a PS4 to make a fair comparison. You aren't going to be able to buy a $400 PC that can run games that look as good as games look on a PS4.

It's not that far off nowadays, surprisingly, and as the years go by and the parts improve it'll hit that eventually.

Yes, it just looks the same to 99.9 % of people, it's just the 0.1 % left are very vocal here on GAF.

That's the problem with taking advice from nerds / passionate people before buying. You don't get the balanced opinions.

I've got money, I can buy dozens more gaming PC, but it's just not worth it anymore now with diminishing returns so I stopped with PCs. You just don't get enough for your money.

If it cost $100 or $150 (with every cost included like monitor and everything) then I would buy another gaming PC, that's what this small visual upgrade over console is worth FOR ME, not more.

Yeah i'm sure you'd be ALL over PC gaming if gaming rigs were 100 dollars. I'm looking for my 3000 dollar ferrari now to replace my winter beater but figured it's a waste of money. Only 0.1 percent can tell the difference between that and a corolla anyway

 

[Timu]

On a side note people need to stop citing Metro as being a good example of any visual superiority. I played both games at launch almost maxed on my system and they are so inconsistent they can hardly be declared the best at anything. They have great "moments" but by and large I think they are unimpressive looking games.

What? Those games almost always looked great...

 

[Alo81]

What? Those games almost always looked great...

I think they're saying that while there are some astonishing portions, there is a lack of visual consistency. I haven't played it personally so idk how accurate that actually is, but it doesn't sound impossible.

 

[Ptaaty]

I don't think it is enough to justify the difference in investment.

I PC game - but it is more about the 100% backwards compatibility, lower game costs, and extremely large and diverse portfolio of games.

Also I am a stickler for performance - on a PC I turn down options until I hit the minimum framerate I desire for that game type...console you are stuck. For the most part consoles get to where I need to (and many examples where optimization makes them much more consistent at an acceptable image quality)

 

[Dictator93]

i dont think much of TLOU visuals, uncharted 2 and 3 were much better. that said, TLOU has much better art than metro. the character models look and animate far better in TLOU. theres really just no excuse for that. pcs were over 10x more powerful than ps3 in 2013.

The game's budget and aims are something to consider... it also had to run on consoles at that time.

 

[Ptaaty]

You have to compare the price of an entire PC to a PS4 to make a fair comparison. You aren't going to be able to buy a $400 PC that can run games that look as good as games look on a PS4.

This is true - but only if you have no need for a PC outside gaming. I have many other uses for a full PC from photo management, video conversion, etc....so it is only the marginal cost investment....in my case just the GPU.

 

[Rocky85]

Really? Better than Crysis 3, or even Crysis 2? How about Metro Last Light?

Crysis 3 yes, but thats expected from a game made for 2013. Crysis 2 Id say its up to opinion.

 

[impact]

For example, here's how my Dark Souls II looks:

Compared to consoles:

Yea I don't think consoles turn the best looking area in the game to a shitty looking level and the first level in the game. What a fair comparison you posted LOL

Some people will go to any lengths to put down consoles. It's so sad.

 

[345triangle]

wayyy smaller than the differences between third-party games on the OG xbox and PS2. but we didn't have digital foundry then!

 

[Mister Wolf]

Im getting my first gaming PC tomorrow. Since getting my PS4 I've grown to really value 60fps especially playing Metro Redux, The Last Of Us Remastered, and Scholar of the first sin. I love the Witcher 3 on my Xbox1 but I am very excited to be able to play The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, and Dark Souls 3 at 60fps with all the extra post processing that comes with playing on PC.