No I haven't.. But that screenshot is def not anything to brag about lol. Looks fugly
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are current PC games a full "Generational Leap" ahead of current console games?
- Thread starter LowEndTorque
- Start date
No I haven't.. But that screenshot is def not anything to brag about lol. Looks fugly
I think that if I ran both on my screen in front of me, UC3 at upscaled 720p is a generation behind TW2 (maxed out) at 1600p w AA
Congratulations, you're apart of the 1%
Yep, UC3 is really beautiful, but that is what you get from the most talented dev team. If they could crank up the shadow resolution(jaggy shadows are especially noticeable in desert sequence) and AA, it would be great.
I think character models in UC3 are actually as good looking as they are in TW2, but the animation is at completely another level in UC3. So it's not all about raw processing power, it's also about clever software systems and talented animation artists.
MP on UC3 really takes a nose dive tho. Clearly a big step down from SP. BF3 MP on pc looks generation better than UC3 MP.
I think character models in UC3 are actually as good looking as they are in TW2, but the animation is at completely another level in UC3. So it's not all about raw processing power, it's also about clever software systems and talented animation artists.
MP on UC3 really takes a nose dive tho. Clearly a big step down from SP. BF3 MP on pc looks generation better than UC3 MP.
Witcher 2 looks great but def not a generation leap ahead of Uncharted 3 lol.
I built my first gaming PC in September (3gb GTX 580 SLI / 2500k) and had been a console gamer pretty much all my life, it seemed like a generational leap to me. I played an Xbox 360 game for the first time since September and it was a massive downgrade, I've gotten used to 1080p & 60fps locked.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Okay but here's the thing; the leap to next-generation is going to actually exist. As someone who has a fair understanding of how hardware works with regard to things like computational power versus wattage and heat, I can tell you with complete confidence that current PC games are what the next-generation will look like, if even that.
So it looks like 99% of people are going to be seriously disappointed. Of course, I have a feeling that when they see a box producing those visuals which has the name of their favourite company on the side they'll change their tune pretty quickly.
I'm gonna downsample those jaggies right out of my game!
I would greatly let down considering the difference from the best looking PC and console games is quite minimal
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Console games look horrifying on a PC setup. To be fair, it's more of a fault of LCD technology than software developers.
Am I? I only have anecdotal evidence, but I'm fairly sure that these show an enormous gulf in quality, enough that the average gamer would easily notice. (Be sure to use full-size, or it's useless)
http://www.abload.de/img/uc32560v8a5o.png
http://h12.abload.de/img/witcher22011-05-1816-12u6q.jpg
(From the PC Screenshot thread - from Google, not even cherry-picked)
Rising_Hei
Member
I can't say that PCs have a full generational leap, they offer basically the same thing consoles offer but boosted
jim-jam bongs
Member
Please illustrate this with pictures, I'm not good at readings.
I do not disagree with this post. But that doesn't change my opinion that TW2 is not a generational leap. I mean, if we took the UC3 pics posted just a few moments ago, and ran it in Orca (a hypothetical emulator) and we got the exact same assets to run at 1080p, 60fps, AA up the goddamn yin yang...it will look pretty fucking close to Witcher 2. While, though I love Wii shots from Dolphin, they do not suddenly look like PS3 games. Some games have the art style to look gorgeous regardless (Galaxy games), but otherwise, we're not gonna confuse them for any next-gen games.
I still think The Witcher 2 is absolutely gorgeous. Things I would expect in a "next gen" title are realistic hair. Fully dynamic lighting. Consistently excellent textures on absolutely ever inch of a scene. Subsurface light scattering on flesh. Massive amounts of tesselation, where absolutely nothing is flat unless it is natural for it to be so. Absolutely no polygonal short cuts...no "hexagonal mortars". No texture tiling whatsoever. Realistic foliage/vegetation, with transparent billboards being unrecognizable. Soft shadows, self shadowing on everything.
Yeah I'm not gonna get that next-gen. Its ok, I will be perfectly happy with TW2.
nelsonroyale
Member
read the last sentance in your quote and then come back to me....
jim-jam bongs
Member
So just to confirm that I understand your perspective, you agree that next-generation will look like The Witcher 2, but still say that The Witcher 2 is not a generational leap?
There is not an "enormous gulf" in quality. Most people would not easily notice. If you ran UC3 and TW2 on two identical monitors in a best buy, the average person interested in a console will not go ape shit over TW2 and demand to know how they can play such glory at home. If you think otherwise, you are delusional.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Just yesterday my friend came over and saw my roomate playing just cause 2 on ps3, then walked to my pc where I was playing just cause 2. He couldn't believe how much better the pc version looked, and he knows very little about games. Just one example, I know, but its there.
Console games look like dog shit on monitors, on a HDTV I might agree.
nelsonroyale
Member
Neither shot is flattering to be honest...That is one of the least interesting looking locales in U3, and that crappy contrast in the WItcher 2 shot is not nearly as harsh when you actually play the game. Regardless, having played both I still stand by my opinion. Both are gorgeous, but U3 actually impressed me more overall.
Yep, my roommate last year saw me playing MW2 on PC and was amazed by how good it looked and (other than Dennis' fawning over IQ) CoD games are hardly the benchmark for PC visuals
EDIT:
I just think that the graphical advances in TW2 (DoF, lighting model, etc) COMBINED with the IQ boost on PC (Resolution, AA, Framerate, AF) complete a package that is a generation ahead of current gen console games. At comparable resolutions, maybe not, but the TOTAL benefit of the PC platform is a Gen ahead, in my opinion.
Let's pretend for a moment TW2 didn't exist. PC is frozen somehow. Let's then assume the PS4 and Xbox Next went the Wii route and were simply same gen technology overclocked. Would UC3 running at a higher res and AA be considered a "next gen" game? Yes. Would it be a generational leap? No.
Will most games look like TW2 next gen? Yes. Is it a generational leap? No. Is it a next-gen game? Yes. Is it a leap? No. Its not a leap. Its not some massive move foward. It is not Star Fox to Star Fox 64. It is not F-Zero X to F-Zero GX. It is not Metal Gear solid to Metal Gear Solid 2. It is not Golden Eye to Halo.
If you disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I am genuinely perplexed by people saying the difference is just as much a leap visually as the previous gen, so plainly obvious everyone who has a passing interest in videogames sees some pronounced and obvious difference. The fact that I don't see it, when I've seen all previous generational leaps, and I've been playing video games for 25 years, is an indication that it is not a full leap.
nelsonroyale
Member
That pretty much sums it up for me.
Diminishing returns for one more time. Transition from 2D to crappy 3D, then to proper 3D and then to shader based rendering its different thing that what You will get in next gen transition.
For me TW 2 isnt generation leap, but BF 3, Metro 2033/Last light, Arma 2/3, Total War games and of course Crysis 2 are.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
As a Witcher 2 fan, at times it completely owns anything I've seen a console put out... of course it should. The hardware is old.
Hardware wise, of course PC's are ahead of consoles, and will always be. That said, overall software-wise? I'm not so sure.
Graphics are nice, but it's not the only reason we play.
Even if next-gen consoles aren't up to the current high of PC tech it doesn't really matter. You can optimize the shit out of a game for a console because it's set standard.
Next-gen will see things better Witcher 2, which again I love.. but it's not universally a beautiful game. There's certain points in the game that look quite like shit, and my PC which isn't top-of-the-line had frame-rate issues more than a few times.
If ND can get U3 out of the PS3, I'm fully convinced that they'd better Witcher 2 on NextBoxPS4 level tech.
Hardware wise, of course PC's are ahead of consoles, and will always be. That said, overall software-wise? I'm not so sure.
Graphics are nice, but it's not the only reason we play.
Even if next-gen consoles aren't up to the current high of PC tech it doesn't really matter. You can optimize the shit out of a game for a console because it's set standard.
Next-gen will see things better Witcher 2, which again I love.. but it's not universally a beautiful game. There's certain points in the game that look quite like shit, and my PC which isn't top-of-the-line had frame-rate issues more than a few times.
If ND can get U3 out of the PS3, I'm fully convinced that they'd better Witcher 2 on NextBoxPS4 level tech.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
I know what you're saying here, but it still makes very little sense to me.
Except that next gen = generational leap.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
And apply a thin film of jpeg shit.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
This thread makes me laugh considering the minute graphical issues I see getting discussed and debated here in the office all the time with cutting edge stuff.
Hardware-wise, I'm certain current PCs are lightyears ahead of consoles, but I'd say there's no developers trying to push the most highend of the highend to the limit. The reason being there's such a tiny market for it. I don't think even Witcher 2 counts. It's a great looking game, but it can't compare with Naughty Dog which undoubtedly has a budget which makes Witcher 2 seems like child's play.
But even so, just looking at multiplatform games I think there's 2 things which can drastically get better when looking at current gen titles: image quality (meaning resolution and AA) and framerate. Framerate doesn't show at all in screenshots, but it's such an important aspect of game performance. And image quality is an obvious improvement.
I know it's never gonna happen, but I'd love to see a jump to next gen where practically all games follow the rules of being 1080p@60fps and using a certain minimum AA setting.
But even so, just looking at multiplatform games I think there's 2 things which can drastically get better when looking at current gen titles: image quality (meaning resolution and AA) and framerate. Framerate doesn't show at all in screenshots, but it's such an important aspect of game performance. And image quality is an obvious improvement.
I know it's never gonna happen, but I'd love to see a jump to next gen where practically all games follow the rules of being 1080p@60fps and using a certain minimum AA setting.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Now we're just discussing semantics. To me "next-gen" is synonymous with the idea of a "generational leap", otherwise how do you actually define the qualities which make something a "generational leap" in a way which is actually quantifiable? Like I said, when I look at HD console games they look like total arse to me, and to you TW2 isn't much more impressive than UC3, so if we start talking purely about what it looks like and not what the hardware is capable of then we head into an area of discussion which isn't entirely productive.
And here I thought that was just what constitutes post-processing on consoles
Next-gen does not automatically equate to a generational leap. It usually refers to a new round of consoles. With every previous generation, there has been a tremendous, massive change in the quality of graphics which made the generation previous look antiquated. TW2 is a gorgeous game...but it is not a leap, it is a stride, a big step...not a leap.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
I was wondering if you would post in this thread. I hope people like sp3000 and others can finally stop the Crysis 1 >>> Crysis 2 bs now. Warm Machine has explained it several times in the past as well but it still goes ignored.
Also textures. Higher res, better AA, and higher res textures are not a generational leap and that's what I see with games like TW2. I can't believe how that game is now this standard-bearer for graphics that people point to. Those screens Dennis posted SERIOUSLY looked like a console game with higher res and better textures, that's it. The only one that didn't was the up-close face shot with advanced DOF in the background. Go look at that Samaritan screenshot from a page or two back, that's a generational leap, not TW2.
RibbedHero
Member
We were laughing at the fact that he had previously said he WOULDN'T pay $500 to play BF3 saying the difference wasn't worth it, when he in fact did, proving that there was/is a big enough difference to justify the $500 worth of components.
If you value AA/AF, 1080p, 60 fps etc like I do than you can easily argue that the PC is in fact a generation leap above the current gen consoles. If on the other hand you feel those things are just 'cute' extras and you choose to ignore them completly than I can understand why you woudln't think so.
Which brings me to the point that AA/AF 1080p 60fps are being massively downplayed here by some people. The better the graphics in your game the more important / greater benefit IQ provides. In the case of the best looking PC (or even console) games the IQ is exteremly important.
Take this screenshot for example that was posted in this thread.
Now look at those pilars in the distance (to the right), see the clarity and detail? If this screen shot had been @ 720p with no AA than all that detail would be lost, replaced instead by a jaggy mess. Breaking the immersion. So what I'm saying is, that in my opinion, in this point and time, IQ ALONE can constitute a generation leap.
Which brings me to the point that AA/AF 1080p 60fps are being massively downplayed here by some people. The better the graphics in your game the more important / greater benefit IQ provides. In the case of the best looking PC (or even console) games the IQ is exteremly important.
Take this screenshot for example that was posted in this thread.
Now look at those pilars in the distance (to the right), see the clarity and detail? If this screen shot had been @ 720p with no AA than all that detail would be lost, replaced instead by a jaggy mess. Breaking the immersion. So what I'm saying is, that in my opinion, in this point and time, IQ ALONE can constitute a generation leap.
Higher res, more AA, and better textures are definitely worthy of a generational leap. What in god's name are people expecting? The rest is software and thus developer limitations. People would be lucky if they even saw something of the quality of TW2 in the latter part of the next gen lifecycle.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Man, did I leave the party before it began?
OK lets put a screen of a PC game that can't be ported to consoles (well, all can be ported if you trim enough). I'm not saying it is a generational leap (do we even have a definition for that? does it change each gen?) but sure is not from this generation of consoles.
or are we to focused on graphics to look beyond that?
OK lets put a screen of a PC game that can't be ported to consoles (well, all can be ported if you trim enough). I'm not saying it is a generational leap (do we even have a definition for that? does it change each gen?) but sure is not from this generation of consoles.
or are we to focused on graphics to look beyond that?
Now we're just discussing semantics. To me "next-gen" is synonymous with the idea of a "generational leap", otherwise how do you actually define the qualities which make something a "generational leap" in a way which is actually quantifiable? Like I said, when I look at HD console games they look like total arse to me, and to you TW2 isn't much more impressive than UC3, so if we start talking purely about what it looks like and not what the hardware is capable of then we head into an area of discussion which isn't entirely productive.
And here I thought that was just what constitutes post-processing on consoles
You know what? You're right. I see the light now. Next-generation always means a leap. TW2 is just as big a leap as God of War 3 is over God of War 2. There is no contest. UNCHARTED 3 IS AN UGLY PIECE OF CRAP. Its intolerable to look at. It looks like Metal Gear solid next to Metal Gear Solid 2. An unspeakably ugly game. I walked past a huge HD TV with it running and I had to shield my eyes, I had seen TW2 and this was suddenly just...too ugly for words.
Nathan fucking looks like a Virtua Fighter 2 character next to Geralt. And the Hair! Holy shit everything in UC3 looks like some shitty decal lazily pasted to someone's head! The set pieces are a joke! Everyone will look back on UC3 and just point and laugh.
Just look at this LOLWATER in UC3..FUCKING GARBAGE, Who can look at this and not vomit a little in their mouths?
Where the fuck is Nathan now? Is this Lego World or some shit?
Its like the land of ugly
Intolerable. I cannot wait for this generation to be over. The fucking pathetic excuse for graphics cannot be left behind quick enough. Disgusting. TW2 blows those screens out of the fuuuucking water. Its like a fucking CGI movie created in Hollywood.
lol
RibbedHero
Member
What I really want to do is give Naughty Dog 580s in SLI, an overclocked i7 and 16GB of RAM (and a massive budget!). Let them code to the metal with those specs. It would be glorious.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Those uc3 shots all have 2d backgrounds (half life 1 is calling and wants its .bmp's back). (all but one).
I constantly see people posting the UC2 rooftop shot too where they are all like wow so many temples....
At least link the snow level from uc2 then or something.
UC games look good, ND are brilliant at smoke and mirrors, but I think the lighting looks really static/flat compared to say bf3 just because it's almost all prebaked (bf3 has plenty of that too still but less).
It doesn't show in screenshots though.
It's not fair to compare pre baked lighting and shadows and jaggy dynamic shadows and lack of AO combined with the low framerate and IQ to pc games with proper IQ, super amazing AO quality (this is by far my favorite graphics feature this gen on pc it adds so much) that actually run at an acceptable framerate...
There is a source mod called Firearms source which has maps with really really nice pre baked lighting and shadows, but it runs at almost 400 fps on my mid range PC....
Not to mention that (and again ND are really good at disguising this) levels get bracketed up by walls and corridors and cutscenes etc till they are the size of a tech demo level:\
Go look at the cryengine 3 tech demos of similar scale or the UE3 tech demos and then you see what visuals you can squeeze out of pc hardware.
I'm sure if you were to render the samaritan demo at 720p and lowered the quality of the DOF that it would run on a single graphics card at 30 fps.
But I bet that then suddenly it doesn't count because apparently pc IQ and framerate are held to a different standard when comparing things (thank god they are held to a different standard).
I constantly see people posting the UC2 rooftop shot too where they are all like wow so many temples....
At least link the snow level from uc2 then or something.
UC games look good, ND are brilliant at smoke and mirrors, but I think the lighting looks really static/flat compared to say bf3 just because it's almost all prebaked (bf3 has plenty of that too still but less).
It doesn't show in screenshots though.
It's not fair to compare pre baked lighting and shadows and jaggy dynamic shadows and lack of AO combined with the low framerate and IQ to pc games with proper IQ, super amazing AO quality (this is by far my favorite graphics feature this gen on pc it adds so much) that actually run at an acceptable framerate...
There is a source mod called Firearms source which has maps with really really nice pre baked lighting and shadows, but it runs at almost 400 fps on my mid range PC....
Not to mention that (and again ND are really good at disguising this) levels get bracketed up by walls and corridors and cutscenes etc till they are the size of a tech demo level:\
Go look at the cryengine 3 tech demos of similar scale or the UE3 tech demos and then you see what visuals you can squeeze out of pc hardware.
I'm sure if you were to render the samaritan demo at 720p and lowered the quality of the DOF that it would run on a single graphics card at 30 fps.
But I bet that then suddenly it doesn't count because apparently pc IQ and framerate are held to a different standard when comparing things (thank god they are held to a different standard).
From a technical perspective how is TW2 a generational leap then? Being a DX9 game it doesn't use any visual effects beyond what the PS360 can do. As far as I'm concerned the main reason it looks as good as it does is because of its strong art direction. It's also why the 360 port looks as decent as it does.
There are some mighty low standards shown in this thread if higher resolution is all it takes for a game to be a "leap". Would a hypothetical PC port of Uncharted 3 running at 1440p also be a generational leap?
If thats the case then im pretty sure next gen will give "witcher 2 gfx" with better animation during the launch year. and will surpass it latter part of the gen.