Wow. Yeah, it's going to look terrible no matter what.
-
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
Wow. Yeah, it's going to look terrible no matter what.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Obviously I don't have a PS3, I've never suggested otherwise. The problem is that if I go out and buy one right now and get Resistance 3 for it then my experience of the visuals will be entirely my own, and won't assist with the comparisons in this thread. It just seems like a waste of time and money since I'm not even sure what the point of bringing up Resistance 3 was in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2vD2lIOO78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwN9N6X8U6w
Pretty much the best rain effect I've seen.
For many it didnt look that terrible as it should had.
at jim jang bongs
i cant back it up with media tbh but i feel people should try out this game cause it does look really good/
You can check out the comments in the OT.
A lot of PC gamers were impressed as well despite being sub hd
I've played through Resistance 2. It was not a good looking game. Watching a Resistance 3 gameplay video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDHyLwKdeMg
It looks pretty similar. Nice scale, but otherwise unremarkable.
TBH it much much better then resistance 2. You should try it
not only it looks good but its a really good game and the best fps on ps3
AcceptableGhost
Member
Why is Resistance 3 being brought up in this conversation.
Because it looks as good as BF3 on ultra settings, dur.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Comparing it to what?!
This is why I feel like I've sort of been Jedi-mindtrick'd into having an argument about Resistance.
TBH it much much better then resistance 2. You should try it
not only it looks good but its a really good game and the best fps on ps3
I'm sure I'll get around to it sometime. I do like Insomniac a lot, and A Crack In Time is one of my favorite games on the PS3 (despite also having terrible IQ and plenty of frame drops).
I do hope Resistance 3 is a big step up from 2 in terms of gameplay. Resistance 2 felt like a subpar Halo to me. Very unremarkable.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I beat Resistance 3 and enjoyed it a lot, but damn if I wasn't wishing for a higher fov, 1080p, 8x MSAA, and 60 fps the whole time.
I really hate it when games pretend the players eyes are a camera. When it's raining outside, I don't see raindrops suspended in mid air in front of my eyes.
How does it compare to Resistance 2? (not so much visually, but the actual game)
oh god, not this again Jim jam, seriously go back and read why I brought it up in the first place.
Nobody's going to convince you otherwise, especially something that dosen't need convincing to begin with. (I'm pretty sure there was no comparison in the first place) Go check out a couple of reviews, I'm sure you'll fined what your looking for, no need for someone else to do what you can easily do yourself.
Interms of gameplay you wont be disappointed.
The Game is quite similar to half life in some areas, also health packs and weapon wheel was a great edtion which was missed in r2
So, basically, Resistance 1 with bigger setpieces? Yeah, I think I can deal with that. I'll pick it up for cheap sometime.
Good to hear.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I didn't enjoy R2 at all, but I though R3 was the best of the bunch. The atmosphere was great, the pacing was generally much better and the environments were a lot more interesting to navigate. On top of that the weapons felt a lot more gratifying to use than they did in the previous 2 games.
Other rain effects in recent memory >_>?
Just showing that it can look great. I don't think it's as much of a looker as BF3, The Witcher 2 etc, but it is up to the standard of other console games.
jim-jam bongs
Member
If I recall correctly you brought it up to illustrate that a game with terrible IQ can still look good, and used Resistance 3 as the example. I don't see it, so I'm asking you guys to demonstrate it. I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about that.
It might be the video, but there wasn't anything that made me say "wow" there.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Yes, I'm not going to act like you are the worst of the worst. But still it seems everyone is getting sidetracked by their biases without looking at this stuff clinically.well fine then.
IMO yes, hardware wise there's no denying that PC's are a full generation ahead of current gen consoles, but software wise, well, I personally don't think so, but I can point you in the direction towards a few frothing mouths that think otherwise.
Current PC's are using tech six to seven years more advanced than either the 360 or PS3. Games that take advantage of that in any meaningful sense, on a purely technical basis are going to be technically more proficient.
The thing I like about this past generation is those differences are becoming harder and harder to make readily apparent. We are getting to the point that the tech isn't the hindrance it was at one point. You can still make PS3 or 360 games that can stand up to PC titles.
They lack the lighting, the interactivity, the closer to pixel precise shadowing, but they aren't ugly games in their own right.
But then again I really enjoyed Skyward Swords visual styling. The trees in that game looked like something out of the Dreamcast era of 3D though. Perfectly serviceable if viewing them from a distance, but when you got close... yikes.
It may to some people, and to others it won't. 720p and below tarnishes the image so much that no matter what's going on behind that awful IQ, it's hard to look past the blurriness once you've become accustomed to higher resolutions. Downplaying the importance of IQ is silly since it affects everything.
If there was a console out right now that was outputting games at 1080p and even just 30fps, a lot more members of GAF would willingly admit just how important resolution is. But most don't have access to hardware that can consistently do 1080p, so it's easier to just say it doesn't matter.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
PC hardware was far beyond consoles with the 4870/fermi couple that with the core cpu's , cheap ass ram and yes todays PC's are ridiculously more powerful than consoles. None of it matters though , no one is gonna make an expensive GAME on PC unless its someone who can make that money like valve , or blizzard so maybe the next HL episode but valve is multi platform now i doubt it. However you can look up game engines and see what PC's could be doing Cry engine, frostbite, etc etc have some excellent realtime demo's.
jim-jam bongs
Member
It actually makes sense logically, if your choice is between eating a sausage-roll or going hungry you'll probably tell anyone criticising sausages that flavour doesn't matter, but once you've tasted steak you know that a snag just won't cut it.
Plenty of people will tell you that its a great looking game, in fact I believe even some of the reviews for R3 comment on it being nice looking regardless of its shortcomings.
The problem is you don't even have a PS3 to begin with, so its going to be awfully hard to convince you otherwise without you actually playing the game to begin with, because truthfully no low res direct screen capture is going to give R3 the respect it deserves in the visual department.
I'm with you. Love PC gaming, definitely enjoy the superior visuals. But next-gen? Not that I've seen. Not yet anyway.
Yeah I'm kind of like Abu here. For perspective, my first console was the NES, and I've owned all of the nintendo and sony systems since then, as well both xbox's. Just built a 2600k@4.4 with a 1.5 gig 580 oc'd slightly.
As Abu said, to me it just feels like a generational leap for me. If that's just because of 1080p60 or 720p60 3D, then so be it. I played BF3, C2, Batman AC, AC Revelations on both among others for reference.
Well its not just a I can have 1000+ units and you can't therefor I am "next-gen". Its a little more then that. A lot of it comes down to what the units do while on screen. You don't just have a large number of units on screen you have a large number of units that for example have that pair off into sword duals with a battle raging all around them, arrows raining down and sticking into what they hit, wounded soldiers moving around in pain on the ground, smoke from fire/gun powder, if one has the Blood Pack DLC you also have once that killing blow is struck the ground and close by troops getting covered in blood, limbs getting chopped off, decapitations going on, etc.
When all that comes together you have something that I think falls in line with
Could one make a Shogun 2 like game on the consoles? Sure. In the same way someone could of made an Assassin's Creed like game on the Ps2. You could have the basic like 1000+ troops fighting on screen. Shogun 2's predecessors Medieval 2 and Napoleon for example did that, but they didn't have all the little details that I mentioned. Its all the little things that they do, the little details that I think make Shogun 2 not just a generational leap from them, but also from what I believe you would get if you ported it to the current consoles.
But that's not fair, you're letting first-hand experience form your opinion instead of rabid fanboyism.
Know what I'm really anxious for? Being able to play today's games at greater than 30fps with super-sampling AA. Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, etc. don't even support proper AA right now outside of super-sampling, and having downsampled both (resulting in pathetic framerates), they will look fucking phenomenal even a few years down the road.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Other than the awful blurry mess the environments and lighting etc actually look really cool in those resistance videos.
I only played the demo of the first game and it was so incredibly bad that I never gave it the light of day again.
The weapons and hud are still awful though it seems.
I only played the demo of the first game and it was so incredibly bad that I never gave it the light of day again.
The weapons and hud are still awful though it seems.
And this could be applied to you and everyone else who has their doubts towards console games in which are held in high regards for their amazing visuals, right?
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Many of us play both.
No, because most PC gamers in this thread also own consoles and can make fair comparisons.
I see plenty of familiar faces here who show up in every thread like this and pontificate about how little the gap between PC and console is but don't actually own a good gaming PC themselves. It must suck defending a position that you actually have no idea of whether it's true or not.
Which is why those eating a sausage roll shouldn't create false arguments on how sausage rolls taste better than steak, or how their tastes are more refined then those that eat dollar-store hotdogs.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Uh don't use me as the example for how PC GAF approaches their gaming. I only play games I can play on my PC these days for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that most of the PC gamers posting in this thread are the same way, in fact I'm pretty sure I'm quite unusual in that respect.
Okay.
Boom.
Okay.
Threi said:
Boom.
BoobPhysics101
Banned
Just to say this: Resistance 3 is fantastic. I disliked Resistance 1, R2 is... whatever... but Resistance 3 is a DAMN good game. One of my favorite shooters of 2011.
It's so good, I played through the whole game.
And for the record, it looks GREAT. The graphics are extremely well done and impressive. I say that as someone who plays the best looking games on PC at the highest quality. Resistance 3 is an excellent looking, underrated game. It is one of the best looking games I've seen on PS3.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Hyperbole I can get behind.
Many of us play both.
As do I my friend. I have a pretty decent gaming rig and one hell of a game library on steam, in fact I'm playing through Dead space 2 again on my PC.
One of the few posters on GAF that could convince me.
I'll be on the lookout for a decent sale on R3.
Raitosaito
Member
I like hot dogs more as food tho =P
Yeah I've done a lot of comparison flipping between Skyrim PC (no mods) and PS3, along with BF3. Granted it is a 1080p native plasma.
Skyrim ran so poorly at times on PS3, it was unplayable in towns. In a way it's as if devs are basically taking the best concepts from PC games (huge open fps and rpg games) shoe horning them for consoles, then scaling them back up for PC.
I haven't played the 360 version of Skyrim, but even without the game breaking save bug, but I don't even think the game should have been made for PS3 from what I played.
BF3 isn't as bad, but I still think BC2 is more suitable for PS3, and not in a gameplay sense but a graphical one.
Consoles just can't do games with scale properly...looking of into the distance to see a blurry mess with objects popping in is terrible, and panning the camera to reveal a sub 30 fps. That just isn't the way open world games should be experienced.
jim-jam bongs
Member
GET OUT
rohlfinator
Member
I'm in this boat as well. Granted, I'm usually a bit late to the party on the graphical powerhouse games (so I haven't played Witcher 2 or BF3 yet) but I feel like most PC ports right now are very much the equivalent of the early 360 HD-ified ports. I love the benefits of current games with improved IQ and framerate, but I fully expect developers to be pushing consoles far beyond that in five years (albeit probably at lower fps/IQ standards). I mean, look at what they're doing now with nearing six-year-old console hardware.
There is no doubt in my mind that most developers are being held back by current console hardware.
Question just for discussions sake: which PS3 game is more impressive from a technical standpoint: Rage (60 fps with minor tearing) vs. Killzone 3/U3/GOW3 (25-30 fps)
PC gaming really made me respect what RAGE does on consoles, and I would probably prefer the choices they made resource wise over the Sony 1st party titles. My opinion is all of those nice sparks and fire effects we still get on consoles aren't very effective when they are sputtering out at sub 30 fps.
PC gaming really made me respect what RAGE does on consoles, and I would probably prefer the choices they made resource wise over the Sony 1st party titles. My opinion is all of those nice sparks and fire effects we still get on consoles aren't very effective when they are sputtering out at sub 30 fps.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
Hardware wise pc is more than a generation apart.
But the games themselves?
Fuck no. Not even close.
The only difference between console games and pc games is image quality.
But the games themselves?
Fuck no. Not even close.
The only difference between console games and pc games is image quality.
jim-jam bongs
Member
And texture quality, and LOD distance and draw-distance and...
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
Frame rates have little to do with generational leaps.
The things that matter is stuff like geometry, lighting, shadows, textures, shader techniques etc etc.
Thats the core of the graphics.
Then you can display it at different resolutions and at different framerates. But a 480p game at 30fps could still be a next gen game.