Support NeoGAF

[benny_a]

How can anyone argue that the PC is not a generational leap ahead?

Check some posts between #1 and #548 and you'll see how some people can argue that way.
And this is about current gen console games compared to current gen PC games, not the hardware itself.

Edit: Apologize for the shitty first post on first page.
(Not only a not-generational-leap-proponent but also a 50 pps peasant!)

 

[eso76]

You're mixing things here. Most everything that looked great on MGS2 wasn't because the tech, but because the budget and artists.

it was because of a clever use of the tech available.

something you can do when you know what hardware will run your game, or when you don't have to support older hardwares.

 

[fresquito]

I don't think so. If there conceivably was a PC version of God of War III that looked just as good as the PS3 version but you could run it in 1080p at 60fps with some more AA, It wouldn't be a generation ahead of the PS3 version.

I think you're in for a hard awakening when next gen comes out.

For reference, just look at what you need to run BF3 at max settings, 1080 @ 60fps with AA enabled. If you really think next gen consoles will be much more powerfull than that, I repeat, you're in for a rough awakening. I'm not saying graphics won't look good, but if you want to improve BF3 graphics, you'll need to sacrifice IQ and framerate.

PCs are using the extra power to get IQ and framerate, and that's only possible because hardware is already next gen compared to consoles. You could sacrifice IQ and framerate and get better graphics, and that's what consoles do, what Crysis did back in the day, because nobody could play the game with good framerate and good IQ when it was released, it was so demanding.

You have your preferences and I have mine, but that's not the topic. The thing is: to run a game such as BF3 or TW2 at those settings you need next-gen hardware, thus they are next gen.

 

[Raitosaito]

Check some posts between #1 and #548 and you'll see how some people can argue that way.

And this is about current gen console games compared to current gen PC games.

I'm subscribed to this thread, so I have read. People are just arguing semantics. That was my point, so yeah....

And if you actually read post 1-548 people were arguing previous generation games too.

You have your preferences and I have mine, but that's not the topic. The thing is: to run a game such as BF3 or TW2 at those settings you need next-gen hardware, thus they are next gen.

Fresquito gets it man. People are arguing points that have nothing to do with "next-gen." I hate when PC users on GAF tout about their superiority all the time (I use an ok rig occasionally myself, but I'm a handheld person) but to deny the platform and it's advancement is sort of shortsighted.

 

[jaypah]

What sucks is that if you showed me GOW2 on ps2 running in sd and GOW3 on ps3 running in sd I'd be able to tell the difference in generations. Doesn't sound like that's going to happen again. When I used to think of next-Gen I used to think of stuff besides resolution. But according to this thread a resolution bump is all we can expect. Bummer :|

 

[fresquito]

it was because of a clever use of the tech available.

something you can do when you know what hardware will run your game, or when you don't have to support older hardwares.

Point taken. Valve doesn't know how to make a clever use of the tech available because they don't know what hardware will run their game and have to support older hardware...

Wait!

What sucks is that if you showed me GOW2 on ps2 running in sd and GOW3 on ps3 running in sd I'd be able to tell the difference in generations. Doesn't sound like that's going to happen again. When I used to think of next-Gen I used to think of stuff besides resolution. But according to this thread a resolution bump is all we can expect. Bummer :|

Not at all. Check out some GTA IV with icenhancer 1.25 mod (I think 1.3 is overdone), then compare it to vanilla GTA IV. It's not only higher ress, that's for sure.

 

[benny_a]

You have your preferences and I have mine, but that's not the topic. The thing is: to run a game such as BF3 or TW2 at those settings you need next-gen hardware, thus they are next gen.

That's a very practical definition but I think grossly wrong.

You can probably not run Minecraft on max settings on a PS3. Especially not if you run into all directions.
That doesn't make the game next-gen.

I doubt the next generation of consoles will go much further beyond tech-wise what the best PCs(if even that) have currently.

They won't. But the games 3 years into the next generation will look better than BF3 and TW2. I'm certain of this.

 

[Red]

lol pc what do pc have minesweeper?

look at this

LOL

Made my day.

 

[daedalius]

I think we need another thread arguing what "next generation" actually means.

Next-gen as in what we think the 'next generation' of games will be and look like.

Or tech that will be in the next generation of consoles.

I doubt the next generation of consoles will go much further beyond tech-wise what the best PCs(if even that) have currently.

However hopefully as more devs get better with that higher level of tech and fidelity, they can do some amazing new things.

 

[Raitosaito]

That's a very practical definition but I think grossly wrong.

You can probably not run Minecraft on max settings on a PS3. Especially not if you run into all directions.
That doesn't make the game next-gen.

Are you trolling? BF3 and TW2 are cited because their console counterparts are drastically different in representation than their PC counterparts. And you are defining "next-gen" however it fits your argument.

 

[Solid07]

I play Battlefield 3 on ULTRA settings on pc all the time with hd6970 2gb and I don't see much difference between it and some of the PS3 games I play besides the AA issue.

Thinking about selling my videocard and just wait for the REAL next-gen systems to come out.

 

[benny_a]

Are you trolling? BF3 and TW2 are cited because their console counterparts are drastically different in representation than their PC counterparts. Minecraft shouldn't even be cited, since Notch never needed to dumb down his presentation to get it onto other platforms.

No, I'm saying the definition that something more is required to run a game is not a good definition of next-gen. Otherwise Shadow of the Collosus would be not PS2 gen but PS2+1Gen as it required more than the PS2 could do.

Also, TW2 is not drastically different enough. Or there wouldn't be post that say it looks good on 360, of which there quite a few. And not all are done by my sockpuppet-accounts either.

 

[ColonialRaptor]

Truer words...
...probably spoken.

Uhhhh.... yeah.


Try playing Battlefield 3 at 1280x720 on a 2560x1440 monitor and try and figure out if that pixel in the far off distance while you're trying to snipe is an enemy or just a piece of dirt on the ground or just a shadow or a jaggy.

It makes a fucken HUGE difference to FPS.

 

[fresquito]

That's a very practical definition but I think grossly wrong.

You can probably not run Minecraft on max settings on a PS3. Especially not if you run into all directions.
That doesn't make the game next-gen.


They won't. But the games 3 years into the next generation will look better than BF3 and TW2. I'm certain of this.

I don't see why PS3 couldn't run Minecraft, if designed from the ground up for the hardware.

Next-gen is definded for what wasn't possible, but it is now. In the times of PSOne, next-gen was something as bizarre as showing FMVs :lol. There're some PC games that are not possible on actual consoles, graphics aside (like WoW, which is a game from 2004), so, in a way, they're next gen for consoles.

And what does looking better mean? Like I said, for you, looking better may mean more polys, more effects, more of everything, at the cost of graphical artifacts and bad IQ. Looking better for some might be cristal clear IQ with butter smooth framerate. It doesn't matter at all, that's not the topic. What it matters is what hardware you need to run it. Hardware is what tells what software is next gen and what's old gen, that's the only objective way to look at it.

 

[Raitosaito]

No, I'm saying the definition that something more is required to run a game is not a good definition of next-gen. Otherwise Shadow of the Collosus would be not PS2 gen but PS2+1Gen as it required more than the PS2 could do.

Also, TW2 is not drastically different enough. Or there wouldn't be post that say it looks good on 360, of which there quite a few. And not all are done by my sockpuppet-accounts either.

Even if we are going to use your definition of next gen, we're missing a crucial element. Shadow of the Colossus didn't need next gen hardware to run at a stable frame-rate, it just needed to run on an Xbox.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

The console guys are never going to admit PC is a generational leap ahead because they sit a good distance from their TV.

Bring their faces closer to their TV screens and they will go "oh".

 

[SapientWolf]

I play Battlefield 3 on ULTRA settings on pc all the time with hd6970 2gb and I don't see much difference between it and some of the PS3 games I play besides the AA issue.

Thinking about selling my videocard and just wait for the REAL next-gen systems to come out.

If you don't care that much about IQ, framerates or m/kb controls then console gaming is probably a better fit for you regardless of the generation. The reverse is also true.

Hardware generations are defined by software, not the other way around. Software targeted at next gen consoles might still end up looking better on current PC hardware.

 

[benny_a]

I don't see why PS3 couldn't run Minecraft, if designed from the ground up for the hardware.

Next-gen is definded for what wasn't possible, but it is now. In the times of PSOne, next-gen was something as bizarre as showing FMVs :lol. There're some PC games that are not possible on actual consoles, graphics aside (like WoW, which is a game from 2004), so, in a way, they're next gen for consoles.

If the same is true for Minecraft, I can't see why WoW wouldn't be able to played on a console.
Consoles had MMOs before and the PS3 at least allows you to connect USB-HID devices.

And what does looking better mean? Like I said, for you, looking better may mean more polys, more effects, more of everything, at the cost of graphical artifacts and bad IQ. Looking better for some might be cristal clear IQ with butter smooth framerate. It doesn't matter at all, that's not the topic. What it matters is what hardware you need to run it. Hardware is what tells what software is next gen and what's old gen, that's the only objective way to look at it.

You're right that it's a subjective assessment. For my personal sake I'm just hoping that more polys, more effects, more of everything is going to increase instead of crystal clear IQ on current polys, current effects, current everything.

Based on the current way developers are creating games I'm on the side that is winning, in the sense that more developers that create my kind of games agree with this approach than with the higher IQ approach, as that can be had by enthusiasts on PC ports in many cases.
One example of a developers openly announcing this approach was Insomniac's move to 30 FPS and more of everything over 60 FPS.

Even if we are going to use your definition of next gen, we're missing a crucial element. Shadow of the Colossus didn't need next gen hardware to run at a stable frame-rate, it just needed to run on an Xbox.

That wasn't my definition. I was using the definition that I quoted. I don't agree with it.
I don't have a good definition as it's always a trade-off, but if I had to go with something concrete at this point in time that is technical it would be: More polys, more effects, better animation & no loading times past initial loading.

 

[ghst]

I play Battlefield 3 on ULTRA settings on pc all the time with hd6970 2gb and I don't see much difference between it and some of the PS3 games I play besides the AA issue.

Thinking about selling my videocard and just wait for the REAL next-gen systems to come out.

post history, i love you.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

post history, i love you.

Hahaha. Nicely spotted.

 

[Raitosaito]

post history, i love you.

LOL

It's too bad their move to 30 fps still didn't let them have enough pixels to hit 720p.

This thread is the best

 

[Stallion Free]

One example of a developers openly announcing this approach was Insomniac's move to 30 FPS and more of everything over 60 FPS.

It's too bad their move to 30 fps still didn't let them have enough pixels to hit 720p.

 

[Appleman]

Uhhhh.... yeah.


Try playing Battlefield 3 at 1280x720 on a 2560x1440 monitor and try and figure out if that pixel in the far off distance while you're trying to snipe is an enemy or just a piece of dirt on the ground or just a shadow or a jaggy.

It makes a fucken HUGE difference to FPS.

Exactly. The difference is literally of retina display magnitude (for comparison). 2560x1600 w AA at 60fps is an ENORMOUS difference from <= 720p, 0-2xAA, <= 30fps

PCs are already next gen. I'm confident that my current PC will be able to outpace or at least match the next-gen consoles.

 

[fresquito]

If the same is true for Minecraft, I can't see why WoW wouldn't be able to played on a console.
Consoles had MMOs before and the PS3 at least allows you to connect USB-HID devices.

You're right that it's a subjective assessment. For my personal sake I'm just hoping that more polys, more effects, more of everything is going to increase instead of crystal clear IQ on current polys, current effects, current everything.

Based on the current way developers are creating games I'm on the side that is winning, in the sense that more developers that create my kind of games agree with this approach than with the higher IQ approach, as that can be had by enthusiasts on PC ports in many cases.
One example of a developers openly announcing this approach was Insomniac's move to 30 FPS and more of everything over 60 FPS.

WoW is a different beast, if only for the player count. I don't think the PS3 has enough RAM and processing power to handle such a gargantuan game.

And I don't care about who's winning. For me we're all losing with this obsession for flashy graphics over gameplay and content.

 

[rdrr gnr]

The thing is: to run a game such as BF3 or TW2 at those settings you need next-gen hardware, thus they are next gen.

A valid, but not necessarily sound argument. There are many (nearly all, in a sense) games, at various settings that simply could not function in the same manner on a PS3 -- but not everyone would argue that these games are 'next-gen.' Like, say BC2 or AC1 utilizing PC hardware; just because those games can only run at 60fps on PC, does that mean they are 'next-gen.'

Of course, as many have pointed out, any disagreements depend on what the definition of 'next-gen' is. Your definition is an acceptable one, but so are many others. And depending on which particular criteria one ascribes to, one could respectfully argue either way.

 

[Zen]

The games? Absolutely not. Software itself is, from a creative standpoint, very in line with consoles, with some minor discrepancies based on platform, not imagination.

Hardware? Yes, but it doesn't show. Especially with so much PC output being console ports and the biggest players in the PC space aiming for conservative power requirements.

The console guys are never going to admit PC is a generational leap ahead because they sit a good distance from their TV.

Bring their faces closer to their TV screens and they will go "oh".

As a PC gamer and a console gamer, this post is off base. Bring their faces closer to the TV and they'll go 'oh, well, 90% of the software only looks marginally better'. Certainly not a generational leap, because 95% of the software isn't pushing the bleeding edge, but targeting something that is still relatively close to consoles, to say nothing of a majority of software being console ports or designed with console versions in mind. It's not a case of people plugging their ears and going 'not listening not listening!' it's that because of the state of PC gaming, it's nowhere near, and will never be, living up to the high bar of those specifications, on average.

 

[fresquito]

A valid, but not necessarily sound argument.

Of course, as many have pointed out, any disagreements depend on what the definition of 'next-gen' is. Your definition is an acceptable one, but so are many others. And depending on which particular criteria one ascribes to, one could respectfully argue either way.

Agreed. I'd like to see and objective one though.

 

[eso76]

where they're crapping on the Wii's graphics, then see if they switch sides in the graphics argument when talking about 360/PS3 vs PC.

Completely different thing.
Now, if Ps3 and x360 libraries consisted, for the vast majority, of games developed for the Wii as the lead platform, ported and being rendered in 1080p, 60fps with some AA and extra shader on top of it (which i'm pretty sure would be entirely possible) you'd have a point.

But the best looking X360/PS3 games look a lot better than a HD, enhanced Wii port could ever hope to look.

 

[Solid07]

If you don't care that much about IQ, framerates or m/kb controls then console gaming is probably a better fit for you regardless of the generation. The reverse is also true.

Hardware generations are defined by software, not the other way around. Software targeted at next gen consoles might still end up looking better on current PC hardware.

Well, yeah and the fact that today's PC Gamers will also have to upgrade their CPU&GPU to play next-gen console ports even if you have HD6970 like I do boggles my mind.

However, I should've known better since this is the norm. So, to answer the question, YES&NO.

YES, PC games look better.

NO, Today's PC is NOT next-gen since we will have to upgrade our CPU&GPU again to play next-gen console ports.

 

[RibbedHero]

I play Battlefield 3 on ULTRA settings on pc all the time with hd6970 2gb and I don't see much difference between it and some of the PS3 games I play besides the AA issue.

Thinking about selling my videocard and just wait for the REAL next-gen systems to come out.

post history, i love you.

Nicely spotted. For posterity's sake in case he edits:

 

[Appleman]

Completely different thing.
Now, if Ps3 and x360 libraries consisted, for the vast majority, of games developed for the Wii as the lead platform, ported and being rendered in 1080p, 60fps with some AA and extra shader on top of it (which i'm pretty sure would be entirely possible) you'd have a point.

But the best looking X360/PS3 games look a lot better than a HD, enhanced Wii port could ever hope to look.

I prefer SMG2 on Dolphin at 1600p w AA over most current gen console games on their native platforms

EDIT:

NO, Today's PC is NOT next-gen since we will have to upgrade our CPU&GPU again to play next-gen console ports.

How can you assume that? I strongly believe that I won't have to upgrade to keep up, unless I want current PC level IQ back again.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

It's too bad their move to 30 fps still didn't let them have enough pixels to hit 720p.

Well that's gotta hurt.

 

[Log4Girlz]

This is not a question that any of us can answer right yet - how much of a leap is the next 'Generation' of video game consoles going to bring in Graphical fidelity.

If we're talking about Wii U, which we've seen already, then we know that for sure the current PC's wipe the damn floor with with that.

Even with the new Consoles, I believe that the most top end PC's will still be more powerful than them, so I believe that answers the question that yes, PC's are a full Generational Leap ahead of Consoles.

I play NOTHING on consoles these days. The only game that I played on console last year was Uncharted 3. I bought Dark Souls and Ace Combat Assault Horizon, but I haven't played either yet. I'm kind of hoping that this Dark Souls petition will pay off and I'll get a PC version - that would be HEAVEN on a stick.

The problem is, that the area of graphics that we are currently moving towards and into is that of diminishing returns.

But, that is no questioning the fact that the Witcher 2 is a prime and clear example of the generational leap. It was developed for the PC and then back ported, so you can clearly see the difference.

Here are a few pictures I've found on the web of the game's 'Uber Mode' at only 1080p, however I play the game like this at 2560x1440, that's DOUBLE the resolution that most of the current console games are putting out and I'm locked at 60fps+. It all comes down to fancy effects like Depth of Field, Anti Aliasing and High Resolution Frame Rates now, as well as huge levels of interaction and destruction that are going to make the difference. Look at BF3 on Consoles compared to PC now.

Here are four shots from 1080p Uber Mode (I think).

Here are some shots from the Xbox 360 Version, to me it's Black and White, but as I said, it's diminishing returns.

They look like the same games. One is unquestionably nicer, but they are both the Witcher. Now, compare a Wii port of say, Modern Warfare, and you have a fucking hard time telling its the same title as the Xbox 360 or PS3 version, which are true generational leaps.

Now this can mean that next-generation will just not be anywhere near as much of a jump as the last, or there are techniques and tricks available to next-gen developers that haven't been used yet on PC. Like that dude wearing the fur on his shoulders...I expect a next-gen game to using a shader to produce convincing fur. Oh and the hair kinda sucks when viewing it in motion in the Witcher 2. I don't know if its a setting of mine, its close to Uber but not quite there. I want amazing glorious hair.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

When the next consoles arrive and are "only" producing visuals at the level of The Witcher 2 on High at 720p/30fps I think people will start to understand what the term "diminishing returns" means.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Nicely spotted. For posterity's sake in case he edits:

Lol too funny!

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Nicely spotted. For posterity's sake in case he edits:

lol

 

[NIGHT-]

Meh.. The difference is there, just not near as much as PC gaf describes. Some people gotta justify spending a grand or more for there Pc rig though

 

[Stallion Free]

But the best looking X360/PS3 games look a lot better than a HD, enhanced Wii port could ever hope to look.

Really now?

(More here from our very own Jediyoshi:
http://dolphinsnacks.com/screenshots/supermariogalaxy/)

 

[Appleman]

They look like the same games. One is unquestionably nicer, but they are both the Witcher. Now, compare a Wii port of say, Modern Warfare, and you have a fucking hard time telling its the same title as the Xbox 360 or PS3 version, which are true generational leaps.

Now this can mean that next-generation will just not be anywhere near as much of a jump as the last, or there are techniques and tricks available to next-gen developers that haven't been used yet on PC. Like that dude wearing the fur on his shoulders...I expect a next-gen game to using a shader to produce convincing fur. Oh and the hair kinda sucks when viewing it in motion in the Witcher 2. I don't know if its a setting of mine, its close to Uber but not quite there. I want amazing glorious hair.

Those "Xbox 360" shots have to be bullshots. There's no way the IQ will look like that, not even close.

 

[Dennis]

When the next consoles arrive and are "only" producing visuals at the level of The Witcher 2 on High at 720p/30fps I think people will start to understand what the term "diminishing returns" means.

What will happen is that everyone who said The Witcher 2 wasn't all that, will suddenly act like the new consoles are bringing never before imagined visual fidelity.

PC graphics are shit right up until the moment they are reproduced by a console - then they are "stunning!"

 

[SneakyStephan]

The most important part is that people who downplay IQ and framerate advantages now ("720p is good enough" and "25fps with stutters looks more cinematic than 60fps") will be the first to praise the new consoles for doing exactly that once the marketing goons tell them.



Brilliant. Then again, doing it from the neighbour's house means I can kinda talk to people while I play because I can shout over the 360's running noise when I try really hard.

Hehe, first part is SO true ;and I keep saying this but no LOD pop up, no fog 'of war' and 60 fps and full pal resolution were the big bullet points sony were advertising when they released PS2.
At the end of the gen more games became 30 fps (or less like shadow of the collossus) but at least we had our 60 fps standard for a while...

Second part made me giggle.

 

[x3sphere]

Well, yeah and the fact that today's PC Gamers will also have to upgrade their CPU&GPU to play next-gen console ports even if you have HD6970 like I do boggles my mind.

However, I should've known better since this is the norm. So, to answer the question, YES&NO.

YES, PC games look better.

NO, Today's PC is NOT next-gen since we will have to upgrade our CPU&GPU again to play next-gen console ports.

Unlikely. At worst, people running top end rigs today might have to cut back on crazy amounts of AA.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

If Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 were made for PC they would be the best looking games of all-time.

Goddamn I love looking at Dolphin pics.

 

[benny_a]

SMG and Skyward Sword can definitely hang with the best of PS3 and 360 when increasing the IQ.

But the Wii can not be described as PS2-gen IMO. Just compare the object density in that game to another fantastic PS2 game like Ico or Shadow of the Collosus. It's nowhere the same.

 

[Darkkn]

I think Console to PC gfx difference is comparable to DVD to Bluray situation. I don't mind watching stuff on streaming(~dvd quality), but for stuff that i really care about, i want to see it on bluray.
Essentially the movie is the same and it looks much alike, especially after the movie sucks you in, but still, if i care about it, i want to see it with clear IQ.

Tho with games there is arguably a bit more difference considering aliasing that is present on consoles and better quality assets and effects on pc...

 

[TheExodu5]

Even Xenoblade at 1080p gives 360/PS3 games a run for their money (besides the HUD):

The characters may not look as good, but the environments put FF XIII to shame.

 

[NIGHT-]

Even Xenoblade at 1080p gives 360/PS3 games a run for their money (besides the HUD):

The characters may not look as good, but the environments put FF XIII to shame.

You're joking right?? Lmao. This thread is comical

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Even Xenoblade at 1080p gives 360/PS3 games a run for their money (besides the HUD):

The characters may not look as good, but the environments put FF XIII to shame.

Wow, my girlfriend is playing that on Wii at the moment and it looks like utter dogshit. Literally one of the ugliest games I've seen in years.

That difference is staggering. It's not a great looking game there, but it's definitely a huge improvement.

I really will setup Dolphin soon, especially since my launch Wii is dying.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Meh.. The difference is there, just not near as much as PC gaf describes. Some people gotta justify spending a grand or more for there Pc rig though

Errr, you can spend half of that and still build a pretty good rig that will look better than current gen consoles.

 

[Raitosaito]

Even Xenoblade at 1080p gives 360/PS3 games a run for their money (besides the HUD):

The characters may not look as good, but the environments put FF XIII to shame.

Agreed.

You're joking right?? Lmao. This thread is comical

Clearly you haven't played FF13 next to dolphin up Xenoblade...