iamshadowlark
Banned
The bolded. I gave examples of some of the best looking pc titles of 2005/06 and how they were eclipsed by there 360/PS3 launch counter parts.
What will next gen graphics look like?
- Thread starter Shadow of the BEAST
- Start date
The bolded. I gave examples of some of the best looking pc titles of 2005/06 and how they were eclipsed by there 360/PS3 launch counter parts.
Nintendo is happy to accept poor running games from third parties, even if they dont make them themselves.
The comparison that games won't look better than today's PC games is a joke especially when you think that the difference between PC games and console games before was much greater that now.
The best looking PC games pre 360 and PS3 were Hl2, FarCry, BF and Doom all of which have been surpassed ages ago.
Farcry
BF2 compared to BF3 PS3 version
HL2
Many things that don't show up in pictures such as the advancement in animation and lighting effects are not even comparable today.
The best looking PC games pre 360 and PS3 were Hl2, FarCry, BF and Doom all of which have been surpassed ages ago.
Farcry
BF2 compared to BF3 PS3 version
HL2
Many things that don't show up in pictures such as the advancement in animation and lighting effects are not even comparable today.
Well by then ( late stage next gen, 2016-2018?) there will have been like 7 years between games like tw2 and Halo 8. In other words I guess it would be odd if they wouldn't surpass them somehow, but hey it's going to be interesting what 2016-18 pc games looks like for that matter.
Nextgen will look better than current top end PC games. Or do people think epic's next unreal iteration will do things that won't be possible on nextgen console hardware? The nextgen consoles will have hardware that is upper level DX 11 in regards to the GPU alone. If had to guess I would put money on the next xbox being an ati 7000 series level card with some tech that will possibly fulfill features that will be in DX12.
Or worse judging by Perfect Dark Zero and Untold Legends.
Its not the same situation. We already have capable engines to support next-gen platforms, because hardware design wont be that much different from current gen ones or today's PC.
Porting CE 3, Frostbite 2 or UE 3.95 will be piece of cake for devs, it can be a 'little' inefficient at first though, but it shouldnt be a problem for first gen games.
What will be interesting is evolutions of those engines to use full capabilities of new consoles.
How do they utilize tessellators, how important will be postAA and hardwareAA, what role GPGPU and CPUs will fulfill in rendering, will be there voxels or some usage of ray-tracing etc.
Chuck Norris
Banned
I don't understand...
If they/you want to compare a grainy shitty picture of a 360 game at gameboy resolution to that of a pc with the specs probably resembling/reminding of a 360 then of course they're going to look "identical".
Here is what the game actually looks on pc, using a picture from the same area basically. And for the sake of it lets both use the native resolutions. The 1200xWhatever of the 360 and I won't resize this one below :
Well its not basically the same area at all. That image is in a completely different area. And there are other photos there to illustrate the difference too.
I'm talking purely about visuals and not resolution
Well yes, I expect most of them to look better, but I still suspect there will be some awful looking launch titles.
Need gen on consoles will be
a) more UE3/4 aka more like samarithan
b) more post FX like killzone Bf3 + R3
c) more uncharted3 level graphics
not saything that everything should look like the above but it would be great. As I think that's where it should go - these engines and games look great. Even R3 which is subHD and probably looks like ass - in a smallish gif, looks really good to me.
image of darksider/dead rising2 - which already looks old when it was released *i liked darksider - which had last gen attributes. Flat mapped textures - almost like a PS2.5 title with better AA. That we should hopefully have moved on from.
a) more UE3/4 aka more like samarithan
b) more post FX like killzone Bf3 + R3
c) more uncharted3 level graphics
not saything that everything should look like the above but it would be great. As I think that's where it should go - these engines and games look great. Even R3 which is subHD and probably looks like ass - in a smallish gif, looks really good to me.
image of darksider/dead rising2 - which already looks old when it was released *i liked darksider - which had last gen attributes. Flat mapped textures - almost like a PS2.5 title with better AA. That we should hopefully have moved on from.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
Unless you go for a multi-GPU configuration for your PC you won't be using more than 400-450W (while launch PS3 had a ~380W power supply).
And that can still be further reduced, especially if you have access to a smaller process and cut unnecessary stuff.
In other words, you can have a very powerful gaming machine with no fear of your house catching fire.
Pretty much. It will just be the same cycle. But I honestly think consoles will still give PC's a run for their money. One key difference that I feel will happen is that consoles will be pushing tech in more creative or bold ways. What I mean is, I think PC's will look better in a static fashion just as they do now (namely IQ). But consoles will be the one's to push things more dynamically (see GOW3's Poseidon/Chronos levels, UC3's procedural ocean cruise/ship levels etc).
I expect Sony and MS' next console to be similar in spec to mid range 2013 PCs, but with the ability to produce visuals far and above what actual 2013 PCs will produce by 2016.
Like how current gen consoles are like mid range 2006 PCs but completely outperform actual 2006 PCs today.
Like how current gen consoles are like mid range 2006 PCs but completely outperform actual 2006 PCs today.
I feel the real question is what happens when you take a system that can do that and then make a game at 25-30 FPS and 720p resolution.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
this thread is becomming rediculous. People keep posting pictures, but none of it is really meaningful because they don't actually describe how these shots impact what developers are going to do in the future.
I've posted this video once already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M04SMNkTx9E
this is a demo from march gdc 2011, it's from lionhead, and it's running on the 360 at 30pfs.
Why this video is relevant is because:
1 - it provides insight into what a first party studio is working on, a studio who has likely has knowledge on what the next xbox will use as hardware.
2 - it utilizes a type of rendering pipeline we havn't seen much of (mega-meshes http://miciwan.com/GDC2011/GDC2011_Mega_Meshes.pdf) which seems very similar to tessellation.
3 - it's about a year old, meaning it's relatively new, which means it's likely going to influence what lionhead uses for future endeavors.
4 - it's running on current hardware so we can assume that next generation hardware will provide a better result, even if it's only a change in memory we can assume better textures.
the cry engine tech demo and the samaritan tech demo are like more usefull as indicators for "next gen games" then current pc games. We don't know what kind of programming shifts might occur and how pipeplines might change. At the start of this generation, pc games weren't known for their multi-core use, something that console programming was a big factor in changing.
I've posted this video once already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M04SMNkTx9E
this is a demo from march gdc 2011, it's from lionhead, and it's running on the 360 at 30pfs.
Why this video is relevant is because:
1 - it provides insight into what a first party studio is working on, a studio who has likely has knowledge on what the next xbox will use as hardware.
2 - it utilizes a type of rendering pipeline we havn't seen much of (mega-meshes http://miciwan.com/GDC2011/GDC2011_Mega_Meshes.pdf) which seems very similar to tessellation.
3 - it's about a year old, meaning it's relatively new, which means it's likely going to influence what lionhead uses for future endeavors.
4 - it's running on current hardware so we can assume that next generation hardware will provide a better result, even if it's only a change in memory we can assume better textures.
the cry engine tech demo and the samaritan tech demo are like more usefull as indicators for "next gen games" then current pc games. We don't know what kind of programming shifts might occur and how pipeplines might change. At the start of this generation, pc games weren't known for their multi-core use, something that console programming was a big factor in changing.
If you don't understand that the areas are similar, with regards to lighting, geometry etc then I don't know what to tell you. Also if you for one second think the image quality is even comparable then I guess it's no use arguing. The fact that you somehow remove resolution from the visual equation shows there's no point in this pointless debate.
There's only so much "visuals" you can pack into a 1280x720 image, but hey what do I know.
I also think this next round of consoles will close the gap between PC's and consoles more than ever before. I'd argue that each gen that passes the gap lessons. This gen, console games are still in my top 5 most visually impressive. Besides the obvious IQ differences, I'd still put UC3, UC2, GOW3 and KZ3 up there with TW2, C2, BF3 PC etc (when talking overall visual prowess, not just IQ).
I don't understand...
If they/you want to compare a grainy shitty picture of a 360 game at gameboy resolution to that of a pc with the specs probably resembling/reminding of a 360 then of course they're going to look "identical".
Here is what the game actually looks on pc, using a picture from the same area basically. And for the sake of it lets both use the native resolutions. The 1200xWhatever of the 360 and I won't resize this one below :
http://www.abload.de/img/witcher22011-10-0512-z4dua.png[/IM][/QUOTE]
This
[img]http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac267/Iceycool8607/Awesome%20Pictures/awesome20face1.png
and this
might not be a huge difference to some people
Damn dude, no need to get upset or anything. Clearly things have gotten a little heated, so I'll take my leave now before it gets out of control.
I think you have to consider that console games are made to be played on a TV that's 6-12+ feet away from the user.
This is why things like resolution and image quality make less of a difference there than when I'm sitting 1-2 feet way from my desktop monitor.
Resistance 3's image quality is horrendous by my standards when I'm playing at my desk, but it looked fine when I was playing it from a sizable distance.
not too mention the way a computer monitor resizes an image and an hdtv is not the same.
iamshadowlark
Banned
BINGO! What these pc guys don't seem to know or just refuse to recognize is that paradigm shifts come with the console more so than there new pc gpu they buy every year.
I agree with 'more creative', but i completely disagree that PC just pushes IQ. You know, console devs sometimes do those rollercoaster moments to wow people, but its mostly one level/one segment things. Yes, it is memorable, but i think PC centric devs goes for better 'push', they 'push' scale. Yes, You dont see beautifully rendered and animated boat/npcs and physics in gameplay, but You have for example 200 people battles or full scale sandbox experience with total control over environments.
Different approaches for different audiences.
Do you wear pom poms when you're doing your console warrior cheerleading?
iamshadowlark
Banned
Chuck Norris
Banned
One shows NPC models, close fire effects, the same textures and the same buildings and are a 1:1 comparison between the two versions. You think disputing it because of resolution makes sense? Your image is a vista taken up 50% by skybox and background models. There is a difference, maybe its you who doesn't understand.
So very, very wrong about BF3 being ugly. BF3 has incredible tech and uses it very well. It has great direction.
I think what we'll see going forward is a lot of dynamic detail systems and shifting as much as humanly possible to real-time sim without precomputation.
So for example real time GI implementations will become more common because it will save on art time in the long run. Likewise with dynamic tessellation, voxels, megatextures etc. Things that are going to streamline the development process are going to be valued.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Do you actually know what you are talking about or at least have enough resources to make an informed opinion when talking about graphics in game/software design? Or do you just ignorantly blather whatever you see someone else say while you cluelessly polish your rig?
Kind of always been like that with PC games though. But I think next gen console games will do all of the above, plus push more open environments and destructibility. I think this gen the reason a lot of upper tier devs omitted with more open natured environments was partly hardware related, partly resource/budget. Next gen I don't think hardware will be as much of a handicap.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
So, what are these paradigm shifts?
Clearly, if it weren't for consoles, we'd still be stuck with single-threaded games.. Jeez
You did? I must of missed it. I don't recall any ps3 or 360 (especially 360) eclipsing that of the best of PC at that time. I'd say they were about on equal footing.
What was the GAF consensus at the time?
Please tell us how we would still be running single threaded games today without consoles.
Minsc
Gold Member
Resolution, framerate and AA most certainly aren't free nor should they be overlooked in a comparison. A 720p 2-4xAA 30fps game might look similar to a 1080p (or higher), 16xAA, 60fps game when both are viewed as static images at 640p, but there's a pretty big difference in motion at the native resolutions.
The lower texture resolution of TW2 on consoles is pretty noticeable in close ups (dialogs/cut scenes).
If you really want to be fair, you'd upscale the console shots to 1080p, and then see if you can notice the difference, rather than use a horrendously compressed images.
Show me textures that look like that on the 360, and then we can talk.
No, this console gen was first that actually affected PC development and actually shader based programming affected console development more at first, then CELL forces programmers to use job-based approach.
Also long dev cycles and really limited resources contributed to create some great and fast algorithms, and thats good.
Chuck Norris
Banned
You know the thing about FEAR, Half Life 2, Doom 3 and Far Cry? They were made to push PC hardware, as exclusives, by top developers. PC has nothing like that anymore. The closest it has is games built around console specifications with DX11 qualities layered on top.
We will see a bigger leap than last gen simply because no games out now are at the fore front of the technology available to them
We will see a bigger leap than last gen simply because no games out now are at the fore front of the technology available to them
airmangataosenai
Member
There are Battlefield 3 and The Witcher 2 screenshots on this very page, man. Come on.
This.
The difference between console and pc games is no where near as big as last generation.
Both games are on console and the difference is not anywhere like the differences between old pc and ps2 xbox.
Chuck Norris
Banned
I'm not saying its free, but the potential for higher resolutions is always there regardless of the game. It is not a visual technology that is reflective of current advancements.Resolution, framerate and AA most certainly aren't free nor should they be overlooked in a comparison. A 720p 2-4xAA 30fps game might look similar to a 1080p (or higher), 16xAA, 60fps game when both are viewed as static images at 640p, but there's a pretty big difference in motion at the native resolutions.
The lower texture resolution of TW2 on consoles is pretty noticeable in close ups (dialogs/cut scenes).
If you really want to be fair, you'd upscale the console shots to 1080p, and then see if you can notice the difference, rather than use a horrendously compressed images.
Show me textures that look like that on the 360, and then we can talk.
A game like the Sims 3 can just as easily be high resolution.
Similarly, a PC game really pushing technology may be best played at 720p. The fact that 1080p was more or less the go to resolution for the Witcher 2 on day one indicates to me that its really not that much of a technology pusher.
You were just saying BF3 on low settings is identical to BF3 on high settings. Why are you still talking?
Didnt Crysis do that for the PC?
Similar threads
- Poll