Uh, 720-1080 difference is huge. You can choose to ignore it if you want, that's cool I guess but it's a fact, not an opinion.
-
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
Uh, 720-1080 difference is huge. You can choose to ignore it if you want, that's cool I guess but it's a fact, not an opinion.
Raitosaito
Member
Don't forget "art direction", which supposedly in this thread is the only reason PC games have the same graphical fidelity of a console.
Always-honest
Banned
The games: Not at all
Anti aliassing, textures and shader effects, etc and resolution: yes.
Anti aliassing, textures and shader effects, etc and resolution: yes.
1080p/30. No more scaling please.
Depends whether I game on my 40' TV, sitting 2-3 meters away or in front of my other TV that acts as my PC display, about 40 cm away.
eso76
Member
We all agree that it could.
But it doesn't, that's the point.
Not just because of consoles, but also because devs shouldn't / wouldn't / won't code a game that puts you against dumb or smart enemies according to your cpu.
Or "You need to play this on a i7 !" would become the new "you need to play Halo on heroic at least !"
Of course they are.
PC games wouldn't be designed and structured around the best tech available even if consoles didn't exist, because that's not what the majority of the PC user base have.
They do take advantage of more modern hardware, but in a way that doesn't affect mechanics and doesn't require huge budget spent on assets few people could enjoy.
A modern GPU will give you benefits in those aspects devs don't need to spend resources on; framerate, resolution, draw distance and overall rendering accuracy.
Again, not what i call a generational leap, although THERE IS a generational leap in the tech behind it.
it's not that consoles are holding PC's back. It's just that they are not pushing it.
Or you could say it's the market holding back consoles and pc's in turn.
Next gen consoles will probably push PC games forward, i expect minimum system requirements to raise considerably when xbox3 and ps4 launch.
I wonder though, if the rumours of potential 2013/2014 release are true, will they still opt for 1080p?
nelsonroyale
Member
I suppose I would choose a pass (Xbox 540, PS3.5 etc)
walking fiend
Member
course not! I don't own an HD console and play PC version of all the games, but don't see much difference (as there is between, say, FF XIII and FF X).
But if 30 is the goal then we'll be right back in the current situation we are in on consoles where games are really fluctuating down in the 20's, which is unacceptable imo. Fluctuating between 50 or even 45 and 60 is sooo much better.
Of course these are just my preferences though. For example playing U3 I'd easily take the same resolution it has now with 50-60 over 1080p even with a locked 30.
Of course these are just my preferences though. For example playing U3 I'd easily take the same resolution it has now with 50-60 over 1080p even with a locked 30.
Portugeezer
Member
I believe so.
You don't see it as much due to the nature of PC gaming, consoles are easier to optimise for, PC's architecture is always changing and relies more on raw power.
You don't see it as much due to the nature of PC gaming, consoles are easier to optimise for, PC's architecture is always changing and relies more on raw power.
I just looked at some recent Digitalfoundry vids and most recent releases are pretty much locked at 30 fps. The only recent game I played where frame rate was an issue was Crysis 2. Pretty impressive this late in the gen and also perfectly playable.
yes, but hopefully 1080p/60. Maybe there will be 1080p/60/3d then too. I don't think anyone will target anything like 4k as a normal resolution. Perhaps PS4 will have 4k support for some games, kind of like some games now support 1080p but not many - so the odd PSN title for instance.
Haunted
Member
Really doubt that, heck didn't xbox 1 support 720p back in 2001 or something?
It did! 720p through component, but not for many titles.
Garrus Vakarian
Member
This perfectly defines my sentiments on the topic, such a fitting analogy.
RibbedHero
Member
Damn, I missed that post, but Darkkn definitely got it right.
Ok, we arent on PC in next gen, i can agree now, at least if i base a generation leap by Sony crazy standards xD
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=458527
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=458527
In some areas yea... But Uncharted 3 is so fucking inconsistent! Some areas it looks like dogshit, other it looks glorious!! I'd give the edge to Gears 3 for being consistent.
I'd like to believe most people would agree that there's definitely a generational leap between watching let's say the dvd version of avatar on a crt and watching it on bluray on your nice hdtv - keeping in mind it's the same movie. All the time the main difference is resolution.
But take a game and apply it to the above scenario and you'll hear folks saying the difference in IQ and resolution is negligible or something...
That's four generation leaps right there.
Haunted
Member
I never understood the praise for Gears 3. I think it's a pretty ugly game. Technically and artistically, mind you.
Unless both Sony and MS go the Wii route I don't see why there's doubt that the new consoles will have 1080p as the new standard res...well with some games being inevitably sub-1080p but you get my point.
Also I don't get why some PC gamers stick that much with stating that IQ/res is what console games are lacking, we all know that and besides that we also know that console gaming was never the way to go if you care so much about this stuff - consoles were never and never will be the graphics enthusiast device, this is what powerful PC rigs are for.
It would've been nice to see GoW3, Uncharted 3, RDR or Gears 3 at steady 60fps and 1080p but considering what hardware they run on even the most elite PC gamer has to give the devs credit for what they accomplished with such archaic hardware...in other words you can't judge everything with the same standards - it's like saying that SMG looks like crap tech wise compared to Nuts & Bolts and that's stupid SMG looks amazing for a Wii game considering the hardware limitations.
Actually that is just a techie/geek kind of opinion. Ask the same question from a film critic and he tells you that shit cinematography is still shit no matter where you watch it. Great film masterpieces should convey all the same emotion and key information whether you watch it home on a 14' CRT or on IMAX theater.
In reverse crap like Transformers would probably be unbearable visually in a small screen :b
Also one small thing, the interactivity plays a small, but important role in this "games vs movies" analogy.
My argument basically is that IQ vs. polycount, shaders, lighting, textures is not a 50/50 split. The latter is much more important. Hence my sentence in regards to the recency of games on display in the high res PC thread. This is a curious phenomenon if the split was 50/50, as older games you can crank those things even higher. I'm not saying you believe this is a 50/50 split, but the way I read many posts here it seems that many believe the split is much weighted in the IQ direction.
I believe if the resources of the next generation hardware is used on for example the current research AA technology and uses 8xAA and 16xAF with current polycount and Sony for example shows this at E3 2013 people will laugh them out of the conference hall.
I think that I can look at a 240p footage of any last-gen game and current-gen game and based solely on geometry and object density can see in what category it's in.
That's also why I think Shogun 2 is such a compelling game in this discussion.
Didn't Ebert say that watching movies that he considers classics on an iPhone or iPad is a disgrace?
Ebert also loved Avatar so his opinion sucks. (was he referring to the whole experience of watching something on a handheld device in a busy enviroment, or was he referring to the screen size?)
But seriously yeah some snobs think movies are to be experienced only in theater (fair enough), but still it doesn't remove the point that good movies and good games should look clear and readable no matter where you game or view it (to a degree).
This. I'd go as far as saying it was fugly.
And as far as gameplay goes it was so mediocre and average. Comparing it to HL2 is like comparing Spam to bacon.... crispy, delicious bacon. It's also insulting.
Back on topic however.
I hooked my PC (a rather good PC mind you) up to my 1080p 46" LCD to see how Crysis 2 would look maxed out. My jaw hit the floor (the city level at night with the mad blue mortar shit reflecting off the building windows). I literally could not believe what I was seeing. I said to myself, one day consoles will look and run like this and no doubt they will at some point. I highly doubt it's the next gen of consoles however, maybe the gen after that.
I really do need to hook it back up and see how BF3@Ultra looks and runs on my TV!!! FAP FAP
BunnyLifeguard
Member
And this will fuck up the pc market even more. A fact that "consoles hold back my 1000 $ rig" pc elitists tend to forget.
Denial runs the world.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
You would be too if you weren't rolling around in the hundred dollar bills you use to buy 5000$ NASA rigs just so you could get an extra 3 fps that you can't even see.
I don't think it's denial, I think it's a product of seeing PC games on YouTube and then assuming you can imagine what they actually look like running on a high-end PC in front of you. You can't.
The difference is much more noticeable to those of us that switch between the consoles and a gaming PC regularly.
eso76
Member
Or it's entirely possible that older PC's will hold next gen console games back for a while.
With skyrocketing production costs, the lowest common denominator is getting lower and lower, to allow devs to port their games on everything, including fridges and blenders.
Long story short: Most games aren't taking full advantage of what a high end PC can do because they're console ports. PC has no monopoly on bold and innovative games, though it is a good platform for them because of it having a theoretically very high amount of hardware power, and a lack of restrictions compared to retail publishing or PSN/XBLA.
EDIT: Before accusing me of "teh consolez r holding back vidja gaems!" hysteria, read my post again. The first and second sentences address completely different things.
EDIT: Before accusing me of "teh consolez r holding back vidja gaems!" hysteria, read my post again. The first and second sentences address completely different things.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
Are you telling me that GAF's console owners don't have $500 HDMI cables and $2000 diamond encrusted mouse pads? Pure peasantry. This forum's standards are dropping.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Some how I doubt that. It has never happened before and "next-gen" is most likely going to be an even smaller tech leap than it has been in the past.
While GOW3 is an amazing game nothing impressed me more than running through Floatsam forest.
Yes it is. So much aliasing, and so much brown.
Minsc
Gold Member
How about 720p in 2020?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I'd like Gears 1-3 to be released on PC on the UE3.9999999 engine revision that they showed off the Bladerunner tech demo on. I know I would rebuy and replay them.
Felix Lighter
Member
That's the real crazy thing. These systems will be around for a long time. Developers will get more out of the machines as the generation moves forward but, based on this generation, that won't result in better framerate or resolution.
Your error is comparing IQ alone to 4 separate categories. No, IQ is not as important as all those combined but easily as important as any one of those 4.
I think BF3 is even more so, not only is that game visually superior on PC (and not just in IQ and frame rates but all other categories too, excluding art direction of course) but also features gameplay and map sizes that are not available on the consoles due to their limitations.
720p in 2008.
I don't think it features gameplay and map sizes that are unavailable on consoles. Unless you specifically mean the BF3 version of those games.
Because 64 player servers in BF3 are a clusterfuck and don't play well at all.
Compare that to 32vs32 in MAG which plays great, and it scales beautifully to 64vs64 and 128vs128 which also works great.
But that's because the maps and routes for the platoons are thought through and doesn't result in both sides just rez-spawn-rez-spawn at the same place in the maps for the entire duration of the map.
The last FPS-game that did high player count well on PC was PlanetSide and that came out in 2003.
That's what I mean, within the context of their engine, the full BF3 experience is unavailable to the consoles. I don't think it's because Frostbite is a bad engine, but rather because the limits of the current gen consoles can be easily reached with todays games. Which require sacrifices in one area or another to circumvent.
What are you talking about? There are at least 7 maps in BF3 where 64 players is glorious and a far better experience than 24. Other maps can be described as a 'clusterfuck' but there's a demand for that type of gameplay as well.
I don't agree. I think 32 is the player count that works best for most maps. Some can be dialed down to 24.
Anything above those two I consider a clusterfuck.
Of course there are people that play on those servers, but to me the inability to affect something with 2 squads is not fun.
People in my platoon (~30 people) that play on those servers choose the 1000 ticket Metro variant and just go there to farm points.
(That this is just silly to me is a different topic.)
I just think that MAG does higher player count better than Battlefield and PlanetSide does it even better than that still.