Support NeoGAF

[benny_a]

I love how console gamers are quick to say "THERES NO VISUAL DIFFERENCE UGHHHHHHHHH" when talking about PC games running with amazing IQ - but when PS3 and 360 versions have MINOR, MINISCULE differences between the two, they are fierce to nitpick over them.

Where can I get your version of GAF that has people claiming that a 360 version of a game is a generation beyond the PS3 version in a console comparison thread and this version of the thread where console gamers are saying the PC version of multiplat do not generally look better?

All that is being said by the side I'm on is that it's not considered a generational leap the way for example GTA3 to GTA4 is.

 

[Dennis]

 

[Speevy]

I love how console gamers are quick to say "THERES NO VISUAL DIFFERENCE UGHHHHHHHHH" when talking about PC games running with amazing IQ - but when PS3 and 360 versions have MINOR, MINISCULE differences between the two, they are fierce to nitpick over them.

Because the companies that make your favorite PC video cards don't cite philosophical differences in "how games should be played".

Console gamers adopt these, and are obliged to accept the unchangeable limitations of their consoles the day the buy them. Thus the (admittedly silly) loyalty.

 

[Corky]

Hey Dennis, didn't know you worked in the games journalist industry... When did ya'll get preview builds of the 360 version?

 

[Speevy]

]

Too shiny. I want to see scorpions crawling within the walls.

 

[TedNindo]

That's the best part about these threads. The large majority of PC first gamers on GAF and in these threads also play console games.

I highly doubt you could say the same vice versa.

I've been a PC gamer since forever and I own all consoles lol. I love all of them. I recently even bought a 3DS.

And I think that the first Crysis released in 2007 looks better technically then anything released on consoles.

 

[Kai Dracon]

For the pure schadenfreude I almost look forward to the next console gen, when "AAA" developers start releasing 40 million dollar games that run at 25fps and 720p in order to push DAT GRAPHICS to make the PR boys happy with the kind of bullshots that can be sent to the press for publication.

Or because in spite of consoles being a lead platform, with fixed hardware config, they are still too incompetent / uninterested to optimize the shit with performance in mind.

 

[SmokyDave]

Shit Dennis, I think you just sold me on a new graphics card.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

I've been a PC gamer since forever and I own all consoles lol. I love all of them. I recently even bought a 3DS.

And I think that the first Crysis released in 2007 looks better technically then anything released on consoles.

It looks better technically than a lot of PC games too. Especially with a couple of mods.

 

[Speevy]

Here's another thing.

Beginning (I think) with this generation (possibly a little of last gen too.) console gamers were able to create an idea of things they think are telltale signs of good graphics.

-Shiny surfaces, high-res road textures, reflective glass
-Fields of wheat and grass, fur
-Tons of stuff happening on screen, buildings breaking apart.
-Giant creatures with grotesque and detailed bodies
-Ridiculous contrast in lighting and shadow
-Lifelike human faces
etc.


So once a game has these things, it takes a pretty big step beyond to really impress someone who is used to seeing them on a big HDTV.

 

[RedSwirl]

That's the best part about these threads. The large majority of PC first gamers on GAF and in these threads also play console games.

I highly doubt you could say the same vice versa.

That's definitely true, but I think too many PC gamers don't appreciate why people play console games, or iPhone and Wii games for that matter.

For them, the perceived improvements in image quality and functionality are not worth the increased barrier to entry, and that the games they're already playing are fun enough. I bought and played The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 on my PC last year, but I still think Gears 3 looked good enough. Hell, I still think a lot of PS2 games look good enough.

It's just a matter of priorities and attaining a balance between different visual aspects.

 

[MNC]

I'm convinced that "The Witcher 2" is a next generation game graphically speaking.

And yet, they're porting it to the xbox pretty well. Sans the awesome IQ, ofcourse.

 

[daedalius]

That's definitely true, but I think too many PC gamers don't appreciate why people play console games, or iPhone and Wii games for that matter.

For them, the perceived improvements in image quality and functionality are not worth the increased barrier to entry, and that the games they're already playing are fun enough. I bought and played The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 on my PC last year, but I still think Gears 3 looked good enough. Hell, I still think a lot of PS2 games look good enough.

It's just a matter of priorities and attaining a balance between different visual aspects.

Videophiles most assuredly do not understand this.

Because devs/publishers don't want to raise the min spec too high and cut off potential sales. High-end PC parts have always been easily attainable, after all.

Guess all those scrubs didn't get the memo to go pick up 2 $250 video cards to run in SLI, and then promise to buy the PC games that are being made off the back of console game profits.

 

[Thrakier]

And yet, they're porting it to the xbox pretty well. Sans the awesome IQ, ofcourse.

Do you have footage of the 360 version?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Videophiles most assuredly do not understand this.

Yet they then get confused when so many people get riled up in PS3 vs 360 debates on which version is clearly the superior looking version yet still claim they don't care enough about visual fidelity when talking about PC stuff.

 

[fresquito]

That's definitely true, but I think too many PC gamers don't appreciate why people play console games, or iPhone and Wii games for that matter.

For them, the perceived improvements in image quality and functionality are not worth the increased barrier to entry, and that the games they're already playing are fun enough. I bought and played The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 on my PC last year, but I still think Gears 3 looked good enough. Hell, I still think a lot of PS2 games look good enough.

It's just a matter of priorities and attaining a balance between different visual aspects.

That has nothing to do with the topic in question.

Do I think Crysis 2 is crap? Yes. Do I think Wii Sports is a million times better? Yes. Does these opinions have anything to do with the topic in question? No.

 

[Serialxp]

It looks better technically than a lot of PC games too. Especially with a couple of mods.

It can be technically superior but I don't think it is particulary beatifull, to tell the truth I think it looks boring (not a boring game, but boring to look at)

 

[Durante]

That's definitely true, but I think too many PC gamers don't appreciate why people play console games, or iPhone and Wii games for that matter

I don't think that's the case, since at least on GAF it seems like most PC gamers also play on consoles. They have the more well-rounded overall perspective.

I fully understand why people play console games, and I do so as well. But that doesn't change the fact that their IQ often sucks and greatly detracts from the overall quality of the graphics. (Though a PC can help slightly with that)

 

[daedalius]

Yet they then get confused when so many people get riled up in PS3 vs 360 debates on which version is clearly the superior looking version yet still claim they don't care enough about visual fidelity when talking about PC stuff.

As if those debates are any better, lol.

 

[BoobPhysics101]

That's the best part about these threads. The large majority of PC first gamers on GAF and in these threads also play console games.

I highly doubt you could say the same vice versa.

Yeah, true that.

I love my 360 and PS3 a lot, but it is so absolutely jarring to play Halo Anniversary at 30 FPS with its image quality after playing Crysis 2 @ 60 FPS in 1080p, for example. I actually couldn't enjoy Halo Anniversary as much because of the frame-rate!

 

[revolverjgw]

The resolution, IQ and framerate on PC are a great boon, but it's hardly enough to make it a generational leap. An Uncharted 3 bullshot would more or less look like The Witcher 2. You can't take a bullshot of a good PS2 game and make it look even close to a good PS3 game.

 

[Speevy]

The resolution, IQ and framerate on PC are a great boon, but it's hardly enough to make it a generational leap. An Uncharted 3 bullshot would more or less look like The Witcher 2. You can't take a bullshot of a good PS2 game and make it look even close to a good PS3 game.

 

[goodfella]

That's the problem - you have to attain a balance. The PS2 God of War games in the HD Collection have higher a IQ and framerate than God of War III, but which game looks better?

Exactly. IQ is not the be all and end all.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Think more along the lines of are there any gameplay experiences on PC that are next gen, and less along the lines of graphics, is what I get. The post early on about Shogun 2, is a good example of what it sounds like the OP was asking.

This thread is reminding me, I need to spend more time with Shogun 2. :/

 

[revolverjgw]

The character model... kind of comparable. SH3 had remarkable models. Its small, simple environments and the textures give the game's pedigree away, though, even on PC.

 

[fresquito]

Exactly. IQ is not the be all and end all.

See, the thing here is: you can get GoW with great IQ on PS3, but not on PS2. But you can't get GoW3 with good IQ on PS3. You could on PS4... or on PC now.

GoW3 looks the way it looks because it's sacrifying IQ. Is it worth it? Probably it is. In PC you don't need to sacrifice it, and that's why it's a generation ahead. You can discuss how worthy it is sacrificing the IQ or not, but that's not the debate. The thing here is that in PC games IQ is not sacrified. And not only that, you get better effects, better framerate and less artifacts. It's in fact, a generation ahead, because you can get better results without having to sacrifice anything. Would it be great if they sacrificed IQ to get more impressive looking games? That's an entirely different debate.

 

[muu]

a lot of IQ issues go down the drain once things start moving. There may be jaggies in the background and those trees may not be drawn perfectly, but unless you're playing Hyper Pokemon Snap the goal is not to take screenshots, and a lot of those imperfections are forgotten about. IQ issues become even less of an issue with FPS's since you're so often facing enemies at a distance where fine details are indistinguishable. All the while, the game we're playing is probably a rehash of what was already available 5+ years ago.

I buy PC parts based on need to play, but atm it doesn't seem like there's a new game where you just can't get a similar experience on consoles.

 

[sp3000]

They have always been there. The difference is that most PC games now are console ports. If we are lucky we get some added effects instead of just a better ressolution and aa.

Games used to be made for the best hardware out there and were downscaleable for people with lesser hardware. And if at some point ( usually about 3-4 years ) you couldn't run the game even at low settings it was time to buy a new PC or upgrade.

Now they are slightly upscaled versions of games that are designed to run on 7 year old hardware.


For instance my current PC is about 6 years old and depending on the game that is released I can still run it at high or highest settings at 1920x1080 with 4x AA. Hell I can mod the hell out of Skyrim and it'll still be playable on my PC with graphics far and beyond what you get on consoles.

Yep. Crysis is still leagues ahead of Crysis 2 because it has no loss in asset quality. Crysis 2 may have advanced DX11 shader effects, but the assets are still terribly low poly and obviously made with consoles in mind. No amount of Bokeh DOF can hind that. Crysis 1 has the cleanest IQ with no temporal AA blurring everything. Also the shrubs are low poly and look ridiculous

For example, here is a shot from the Crysis 2 SDK

Notice the temporal AA blurs everything, the only real standout effect here is the POM effect on the bricks which Crysis 1 had also

and from the Crysis 1 SDK

Very clean IQ here, and asset quality is clearly ahead of Crysis 2

Crysis 1 is a brute force game in many ways, but this lack of optimization makes it the best looking game engine overall, while Cryengine 3 with DX11 relies on smoke and mirrors which result in a loss of image quality, even if you do get fancy things like tessellation.

And yet, they're porting it to the xbox pretty well. Sans the awesome IQ, ofcourse.

HL2 was ported to xbox and so was Doom 3. And yet ID tech 4 was used on Xbox 360.

Guess all those scrubs didn't get the memo to go pick up 2 $250 video cards to run in SLI, and then promise to buy the PC games that are being made off the back of console game profits.

One of the stupider posts in this thread. Not only is it full of hyperbole, but it reeks of desperation, and even more likely barely restrained jealously.

A $130 dollar card will run almost every game at 1080p with 4xAA. How exactly was Witcher 2 made off the back of console game profits? You are totally full of shit and have no business in this thread.

 

[idlewild_]

All that is being said by the side I'm on is that it's not considered a generational leap the way for example GTA3 to GTA4 is.

GTA 4 was, imho, a pretty empty game when compared to SA or VC. GTA 4 blew the PS2 games away graphically, but if the measure we are using for 'next gen' is content, then it was a step backwards; the city felt kind of dead/empty.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

GTA 4 was, imho, a pretty empty game when compared to SA or VC. GTA 4 blew the PS2 games away graphically, but if the measure we are using for 'next gen' is content, then it was a step backwards; the city felt kind of dead/empty.

You're crazy. Go back to PS2 gen GTA games and play them again. They're not nearly as full as you remember them.

GTA IV is absolutely alive. You have rose tinted glasses my friend.

 

[Swifty]

So how much did they have to dumb down the graphics of Crysis in order to produce a port of a game released in 2007 to the consoles?

Would the consoles even handle the ENB mods for GTA, DXHR, and Skyrim?

 

[sn00zer]

RAGE comes very close to looking next gen, muddy textures and pop in are the only thing holding it back. Amazing character models and animation systems, extremely detailed town areas. Hope the next Fallout can meet the standard RAGE has set.

 

[idlewild_]

You're crazy. Go back to PS2 gen GTA games and play them again. They're not nearly as full as you remember them.

GTA IV is absolutely alive. You have rose tinted glasses my friend.

Maybe, I haven't played 4 or the PS2 ones in a while, but I definitely remember there being a lot less mini-games, weapons, and things to do in general. It was a pretty game, and the story was fun, but I didn't play it very much outside the story like I did with the PS2 ones.

 

[Durante]

a lot of IQ issues go down the drain once things start moving.

Shimmering is just as bad as a motion artifact as aliasing is as a static artifact.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

[img.]http://www.abload.de/img/witcher22011-10-0223-yi2gb.jpg[/img]

[img.]http://www.abload.de/img/witcher22011-10-0222-pq0cu.png[/img]

[img.]http://www.abload.de/img/witcher22011-10-0118-ki34q.jpg[/img]

Seriously, what's impressive about these pics? I see a high res and some of the textures being super sharp, along with tesselation on the bricks. I'm not impressed and don't consider that anywhere near a generational leap save for the resolution. Wanna see a borderline next-gen title? Post some high quality gifs/videos of Crysis 2 mission "Unsafe Haven" with DX11 totally maxed out. I'm an enormous graphics whore and that level is the only thing that's really made me go wow this is next-gen. That level is what I expect and hope for the early parts of next-gen, and then hopefully near-Samaritan level visuals in the middle and later parts of next-gen. The Witcher 2's graphics are getting seriously overrated.

 

[x3sphere]

The resolution, IQ and framerate on PC are a great boon, but it's hardly enough to make it a generational leap. An Uncharted 3 bullshot would more or less look like The Witcher 2. You can't take a bullshot of a good PS2 game and make it look even close to a good PS3 game.

That's a huge testament to The Witcher 2, considering it was made on a fraction of the budget Uncharted had - and it's a bigger game to boot.

 

[daedalius]

One of the stupider posts in this thread. Not only is it full of hyperbole, but it reeks of desperation, and even more likely barely restrained jealously.

A $130 dollar card will run almost every game at 1080p with 4xAA. How exactly was Witcher 2 made off the back of console game profits? You are totally full of shit and have no business in this thread.

The point of it was hyperbole. I guess sarcasm is undetectable over the internets.

Been PC gaming since doom.

That image of Crysis is pretty great though, I still wouldn't call it a generational leap, but it is probably the best in this thread in terms of realistic foliage and lighting. It sure didn't look that good when I played it. Of course, that was at release...

 

[Blizzard]

Shimmering is just as bad as a motion artifact as aliasing is as a static artifact.

I think I've seen this in multiple games. Are there any tricks to fixing shimmering effects? Are they related to anisotropic filtering (or lack thereof) for instance?

 

[Durante]

Seriously, what's impressive about these pics? I see a high res and some of the textures being super sharp, along with tesselation on the bricks. I'm not impressed and don't consider that anywhere near a generational leap save for the resolution. Wanna see a borderline next-gen title? Post some high quality gifs/videos of Crysis 2 mission "Unsafe Haven" with DX11 totally maxed out. I'm an enormous graphics whore and that level is the only thing that's really made me go wow this is next-gen. That level is what I expect and hope for the early parts of next-gen, and then hopefully near-Samaritan level visuals in the middle and later parts of next-gen. The Witcher 2's graphics are getting seriously overrated.

I think Witcher 2 is the best looking game, period, out right now. It doesn't have tons of shitty effects smearing up your screen, but it has fantastic art direction and -- and that's the most important part -- consistent, high quality assets. Unlike pretty much all recent "AAA" games in Witcher 2 you don't come across a low-poly prop or smudgy texture every few minutes. And that makes all the difference.

I think I've seen this in multiple games. Are there any tricks to fixing shimmering effects? Are they related to anisotropic filtering (or lack thereof) for instance?

Shimmering can be caused by many things:
a) bad texture filtering on high-frequency textures
b) lacking AA on sub-pixel structure
c) lacking shadow map resolution
d) limited sampling in pixel shader effects
(ususally, in console games, it's "all of the above")

a) and b) can be fixed by forcing better sampling and AA respectively, the other 2 issues are engine related and can only be mitigated by SSAA which is a rather costly (but really good looking) solution.

 

[SapientWolf]

Exactly. IQ is not the be all and end all.

It's getting more important as devs start getting diminishing returns on hardware upgrades. I don't think most people on home tv setups are going to notice all the graphical improvements coming next gen because they would need a large viewing angle with good IQ to fully appreciate the extra detail. A lot of console players still rock a 480p CRT.

But a sub-HD game on a 1080p LCD PC monitor would look like a jaggy mess. PC gaming viewing angles are comparable to IMAX theaters. The subtle details are much easier to see.

 

[SuicideUZI]

I think Uncharted 3 graphics rivals the best PC graphics so to answer your question no


btw I still think Left 4 Dead 2 character models shit all over most games character models

 

[Slappers Only]

In terms of software, no. Phones, however, are already there.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

It doesn't have tons of shitty effects

This type of cop-out answer is downplaying real technical features and advantages by calling them shitty effects. The best parts of Crysis 2 DX11 take a relatively large dump on TW2.

 

[zoukka]

Yes l4d series has the best faces goddamn. A perfect example of "art over tech".

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Valve are art gods. DotA 2 looks SO friggin' good

 

[Blizzard]

This type of cop-out answer is downplaying real technical features and advantages by calling them shitty effects. The best parts of Crysis 2 DX11 take a relatively large dump on TW2.

I dislike some effects though, such as the blur (temporal AA and/or MLAA) of Crysis 2, or the hazy blur and/or color filtering of certain other games (such as racing titles). Even if they are incredibly technically advanced and demanding, if I don't personally like how they look, they aren't worth it to me.

Other people may like those effects of course.

 

[sp3000]

This type of cop-out answer is downplaying real technical features and advantages by calling them shitty effects. The best parts of Crysis 2 DX11 take a relatively large dump on TW2.

You mean useless effects that you can barely notice like shadow penumbra and tessellating thousands of polys onto concrete barriers that look the same afterwards? The only worthwhile effects are ones that can already be done in DX9 like realtime reflections and POM.

This is no substitute for good textures and high poly assets.

Crysis 2 has one of the worst IQ of any game released, even if it's technically the best in terms of effects, the temporal AA in particular is probably the worst vaseline filter I have seen.

 

[Dennis]

Seriously, what's impressive about these pics? I see a high res and some of the textures being super sharp, along with tesselation on the bricks. I'm not impressed and don't consider that anywhere near a generational leap save for the resolution.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I think Witcher 2 is the best looking game, period, out right now. It doesn't have tons of shitty effects smearing up your screen, but it has fantastic art direction and -- and that's the most important part -- consistent, high quality assets. Unlike pretty much all recent "AAA" games in Witcher 2 you don't come across a low-poly prop or smudgy texture every few minutes. And that makes all the difference.

The funny part is, the cited qualities of Witcher 2 is largely an issue of art direction and craftsmanship. Aside from ram for loading assets, it doesn't take a load of power to craft a game in which every texture is pretty and every asset is well modeled.

I could call Yoshi's Island one of the best looking games of all time, and better looking today than most 2D games because of the sheer perfection of its art direction and the perfect craftsmanship of its assets.

Ironically, this is a reason why a lot of people with consoles don't get simply blown away by a shot of a PC game with nice textures and AA. It's impressive, but it may not make a given console game look "shitty" by comparison. Like the people saying Gears of War 3 looks impressive in its own right. GoW3 has great craftsmanship put into it. It's very impressive. Would it look even better on PC at higher res with amazing AA? Sure. Just as Yoshi's Island would look better if drawn natively at 1080p. Doesn't mean YI as it is looks like"shit".

It's a values argument. For some people what matters most is seeing the assets on their screen that most look precisely look like real life or flawless CG. I am reminded of Skyward Sword threads where some people shit bricks if they believe motion control is only 97.8 percent accurate, as opposed to 100%.

As is typical with people though, everybody wants to rationalize that their standards are entirely objective and true. So if all that matters to you is IQ, it becomes objectively true that IQ is the dealbreaking element in any visual package. And anyone who disagrees is in denial, has "stockholm syndrome" or whatever other weird rationalizes that get thrown around.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I dislike some effects though, such as the blur (temporal AA and/or MLAA) of Crysis 2, or the hazy blur and/or color filtering of certain other games (such as racing titles). Even if they are incredibly technically advanced and demanding, if I don't personally like how they look, they aren't worth it to me.

Other people may like those effects of course.

I think we can all agree the temporal AA garbage in C2 was very, very painful. Fortunately you can get rid of it with a few .ini tweaks. That's not what I was referring to, but yeah in general devs need to be careful with how they use these new graphical features. For example, spamming tesselation on roads and making them look super blocky and something you couldn't even walk on in real life without tripping.