Support NeoGAF

[Blinck]

Within the confines of the same engine and general practicality, yes, this version does mostly fully utilize PC's. Obviously if you're going to take that phrase ultra literally, you could argue they could do more, but I think you know what I mean. Rockstar did very well to give the PC version some very good improvements and the optimization looks to be fantastic, with even CPU loading and all(allowing for an easier time to hit higher framerates).

As far as all the graphical goodies go, of course some of them are expensive, power-wise. But they are nice to have. The game allows tremendous scalability from lower end PC's to extremely high end ones.

Besides the framerate, which is obviously a huge plus, yes, I will keep saying the graphical upgrade is underwhelming.

Like you said, they are bound to the original engine. The thing is, the original engine will always be made for consoles, so the graphical improvements on PC's will always be, IMO, underwhelming and with diminishing returns when it comes to performance trade.

If you are happy that you have a high-end PC and the only improvements over the consoles are *generally* just IQ and framerate, then I'm glad that you are happy. I wouldn't be, because if I had a high.end PC I'd like it to be properly utilized, and we both know that if games were built with PC's in mind first, graphics today would be very much ahead of what we see now.

 

[Mutagenic]

I was thinking about grabbing this on PC, but then I saw the GTX 760 performance. Even though I have a 4gb card, I think I'll just stick to my PS4 version.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Can't wait to see how RdR2 or GTAVI will look. I mean, GTA IV to V on the PS3 is fucking huge.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

I would of thought being a PC guy who, assumably, knows how graphic performance work, you would know most of the missing grass on consoles comes from LOD. The grass and other foliage is actually there when you get closer. "grassgate" between PS4 and XB1 had actual missing foliage.

People tried to do the same thing using those, perfect for a fashion magazine, enhanced PC screens from RS to show that PS4 had completely missing foliage. That's not actually the case.

Marketing shot from RS


PS4 screen taken further away and not even at the correct angle


Correct PS4 screen



You PC guys are something else.

"lets not argue about what makes the PC version better, let's argue how the PC version is the same."

 

[Lulubop]

You are asking for waaaaaaay too much from the Mustard Race...

Oh nice, let's keep shitting the thread up with platform warrior nonsense.

 

[Seanspeed]

Not saying that they don't matter.

I'm just saying that they are very far from what they could be if the developers actually utilized the power of todays high-end graphics cards. ( see my edit to your response above)
But this never happens because todays AAA games are built with consoles in mind since that's where the money is.

My point is, and this is obviously a personal opinion, the graphical improvements that we are getting on PC ports are very dissatisfying compared to the power that these PCs have and the money that they cost.

I said before the game ever came out on PC that I was going to be just fine with the same graphics as on console, but at 60fps. I would have been satisfied with that. Being able to play these 'console games' at a good framerate makes a massive difference for me. Anything else on top of that is just icing, as far as I'm concerned. Of course I wish developers did more, but unless you expect them to build PC versions from the ground up just for higher end hardware, then the more typical console port we see is going to be the norm, and it's understandable. Rockstar did a valiant job giving a huge range of options for PC players of all kinds, and optimizing the game so you didn't need some $2000 PC to play at 1080p/60fps. Hell, many people with very modest rigs could play at 1440p if they didn't mind 30fps.

They even did what I wish tons more would do, which is to not lock the UI/HUD to the main resolution, meaning you can turn the resolution up and not have the UI get all tiny and unusable. Small touch, but a huge difference for those of us with higher resolution monitors or who like to downsample.

It's very hard to ask for much more than what they've done here.

 

[ViviOggi]

You are asking for waaaaaaay too much from the Mustard Race...

sick post

 

[Nzyme32]

That's the thing about PC gaming...people compare this extremely performance consuming settings and then compare it to consoles.

Well no shit it looks better. You need to have a PC that costs around 2k$ or so to have the game run like that with a decent performance. But of course this doesn't matter and it's an invalid argument, because the game CAN look like that no matter what.

It's bullshit.

Most PC gamers will be playing the game similarly to the PS4 version ( which is great ) so it doesn't even fucking matter.

By the end of last gen the differences were actually interesting. Something like Crysis 3 or Metro on consoles was very much behind a budget PC. There were ton of differences between the versions.

This game has little differences to the point where you can only notice if you put a 2k$ PC against a 400$ console.

But of course, this is just us console gamers justifying out choice, right?

"2k$ PC against a 400$ console" - really?

From all that has been shown so far, this is far from the case. Even further to that, this is always the case with PC games - scalability to allow compatibility and customisability across a wide range of hardware.

A bonus to all that is the extended longevity of the game over time. From my perspective, even using a low end laptop now, it is by far more cost effective to get the PC version of the game (a game that I am with certainty going to play and replay on and off for years) and benefit from that scalability as I change hardware later on.

Meanwhile as shown by plenty of data already, the game scales brilliantly across lots of hardware far below the "$2k" mark even if for some bizarre reasons everyone has to conform to your idealised console comparable view of fidelity options. The great thing that should be celebrated here is the freedom to do whatever you like with the game and your hardware due to the great scalability. You absolutely do not need a "$2k" PC for the some of the lod variations you are arguing against depending on what compromises you want to make.

I'll never understand the need to argue as if the PC version and platform have to exist as a static entity - where everyone wants to make "console" compromises only to reach a certain fidelity that is somehow all that matters

 

[Lockjaw333]

I don't know why these threads have to devolve into pointless bickering every single time. I do find the face off articles interesting just to see what choices were made in terms of settings on each platform, but they are so unhealthy in terms of what people do with the information.

The only purpose these face offs should serve is to show how the PS4 and X1 compare for people with both consoles who would like to make an informed choice, and then to show what hardware you would need on PC to get a console-level experience and also how it benchmarks on a range of hardware. That is the only thing we should be taking away from it, just a set of information to help consumers make an informed choice if graphics are something they care about.

The point is not to LOL at consoles being close to the "2K PC version", or how much better the PC version is than the "shitty consoles", or to shame people with lesser PC hardware using the benchmarks. Unfortunately that is how everyone ends up using the information.

Eurogamer's intention I'm sure is the prior, but I'm SURE they don't mind the hits and pub the latter generates.

I came in here just wanting to see benchmarks and what settings are equal to the console versions, and of course its already a shitshow. Honestly I see more console-warsy posts on both sides in these threads that are let go, and I see seemingly harmless comments in other threads that could be perceived as console warish that get the ban hammer.

 

[omonimo]

This kinda of thread start to be predictable. :/ It always end in the same boring discussions.

 

[Ishida]

Oh nice, let's keep shitting the thread up with platform warrior nonsense.

Let's not pretend the thread was not filled with that from the very original post. And both PC and console gamers are being equally dumb here.

sick post

Why thank you! =D

 

[KarmaCow]

You are asking for waaaaaaay too much from the Mustard Race...

It's just his onion. Can't blame him for relishing at the idea of getting a dig at consoles warriors playing ketchup.

 

[Lockjaw333]

It's just his onion. Can't blame him for relishing at the idea of getting a dig at consoles warriors playing ketchup.

Give him the points.

 

[Seanspeed]

Besides the framerate, which is obviously a huge plus, yes, I will keep saying the graphical upgrade is underwhelming.

Like you said, they are bound to the original engine. The thing is, the original engine will always be made for consoles, so the graphical improvements on PC's will always be, IMO, underwhelming and with diminishing returns when it comes to performance trade.

If you are happy that you have a high-end PC and the only improvements over the consoles are *generally* just IQ and framerate, then I'm glad that you are happy. I wouldn't be, because if I had a high.end PC I'd like it to be properly utilized, and we both know that if games were built with PC's in mind first, graphics today would be very much ahead of what we see now.

Well not really. As you were all too eager to point out, many people who play on PC don't have high end PC's. Building games just for the high end doesn't help all PC gamers, just ones with the specific hardware to handle it. Tons of PC exclusives that, while not based on consoles, still require a level of scalability that limits them from going crazy on the graphics. A game like Crysis was a bit of an exception in these modern times, as devs cant really afford to create super high end experiences that only a very limited few can enjoy. It's just bad business sense.

Anyways, improvement to IQ and especially framerate are hardly crappy ways to utilize extra power. I mean, 60fps(or higher!) truly makes a world of a difference for myself and *many* others. If you feel otherwise, whatever, but again - please don't come in here and try and say these aren't worthwhile improvements. You are seriously sounding very much like you're trying to justify your purchasing decisions more than anything.

 

[Ishida]

It's just his onion. Can't blame him for relishing at the idea of getting a dig at consoles warriors playing ketchup.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

It's just his onion. Can't blame him for relishing at the idea of getting a dig at consoles warriors playing ketchup.

Thread redeemed.

 

[Windom Earle]

The difference comes mainly from LOD. Therefore it doesn't matter because the grass is still there on consoles.

lod doesn't count (lol).

 

[Blinck]

I said before the game ever came out on PC that I was going to be just fine with the same graphics as on console, but at 60fps. I would have been satisfied with that. Being able to play these 'console games' at a good framerate makes a massive difference for me. Anything else on top of that is just icing, as far as I'm concerned. Of course I wish developers did more, but unless you expect them to build PC versions from the ground up just for higher end hardware, then the more typical console port we see is going to be the norm, and it's understandable. Rockstar did a valiant job giving a huge range of options for PC players of all kinds, and optimizing the game so you didn't need some $2000 PC to play at 1080p/60fps. Hell, many people with very modest rigs could play at 1440p if they didn't mind 30fps.

They even did what I wish tons more would do, which is to not lock the UI/HUD to the main resolution, meaning you can turn the resolution up and not have the UI get all tiny and unusable. Small touch, but a huge difference for those of us with higher resolution monitors or who like to downsample.

It's very hard to ask for much more than what they've done here.

I agree with you, from what I've seen this is a great port and I might actually get the game for PC.

I just cringe when PC gamers glorify the PC to an extreme level when most of the improvments on PC, besides framerate, are for the most part, like you said, just icing on the cake.

It wasn't before the new consoles came out that I really saw how "behind" the PC actually is to realizing it's true potential.
We get a PS4 which has the hardware of an old PC by today's standards, and a mid-range one when it came out, and yet it puts out games like Driveclub, Infamous, Killzone, Bloodborne and the Order that visually blow anything on PC out of the water (before Unity and Ryse, which again came from the next gen consoles).
Even stuff like Crysis 3 seemed to be held back. It looks great but doesn't have half the impact of something like The Order or Infamous.

Only when next gen CONSOLES came out did we finally have a look at what actual "next-gen graphics" truly were, even though a PC could theoretically have done similar things much earlier, and COULD do MUCH better things now. But it doesn't, because it's always following behind the consoles, and so we just get the same graphics with some extra improvements.

Sorry for the ramble, it went a bit off-topic. Point is, I wish some big developer would actually do something like GTA5 from the ground up on PC so that we could actually see what today's PCs are capable of.
It pisses me off that we buy a graphic card that costs the same or more as a console and only get the sort of improvements being shown here. I'm not saying they aren't good ( specially framerate), but they could be so much more..

 

[dehalcyone]

First off, the pc version plays great (even at 1920x1080), but Damn... am I part of a minority (super pun intended, americans) that absolutely doesn't pay any mind to blades of grass, bushes trees etc? Obviously, we're past the point of square trees so let's ignore the fact that there's fewer reasons to skimp landscaping.

Draw distances aside, I just don't see the huge difference that's supposedly a game changer.

 

[Jonm1010]

Not saying that they don't matter.

I'm just saying that they are very far from what they could be if the developers actually utilized the power of todays high-end graphics cards. ( see my edit to your response above)
But this never happens because todays AAA games are built with consoles in mind since that's where the money is.

My point is, and this is obviously a personal opinion, the graphical improvements that we are getting on PC ports are very dissatisfying compared to the power that these PCs have and the money that they cost.

Are we just ignoring the savings that comes with PC gaming as well because it fits a convenient narrative? Or are you just forgetting to put that into your calculation?

I spent a little over a $1000 on an i7 CPU, 16gig ram, 2tb, 660gtx x51. An overpriced prebuilt PC to be certain. Then spent money to upgrade the GPU several years later to a 970. Make no mistake I knowingly took a much more expensive path.

Compared to what I spent to buy a PS3 and then ps4 the difference is probably a good bit but I could of likely shaved a few hundred off if I built myself.

But then when you factor in the savings on games? That gap begins to close over time. Even games that a person buys day 1 on PC typically qualifies for a 15-25% discount on places like greenmamgaming and I don't have to wait for HD ports when I upgrade my GPU.

I would say you end up spending a higher initial investment to get a PC but done right, over the long run, the higher cost is greatly reduced by the savings in games.

So I really don't buy this argument of exorbitant costs for only extea icing on the cake in terms of quality and performance. Summed up over the years I think my even expensive PC gaming route has paid for itself in game savings compared to if I tried to do that on console.

 

[KingSnake]

I've created a visual aid.

Hahaha, nice! After this it switched to "why are you comparing your expensive car to my small cheap one, mean people?

Spoiler

but they still drive the same, except for bigger speed, better steering and better safety features

"

 

[Buburibon]

Looking at the very best-case performance, Nvidia's Titan X is unique for being able to achieve a downscaled 4K image while maxing-out every setting. A 60fps read-out isn't perfectly assured here though, and ultra quality grass in particular is an Achilles heel to performance during Trevor's first few missions. For a clean 60fps while playing at 4K, the grass and shadow settings need lowering by a notch, while advanced distance scaling is reined in to 50 per cent to smooth its edges. The visual downgrades are thankfully small in practice, and overall are worth the trade-off to hit that top refresh.

Wut? That doesn't sound right. I needed TitanX SLI to achieve this. Smokey as well. A single TitanX (SLI disabled) stayed in the 30s.

It's pretty accurate if you replace the 4K with 1440p. A single Titan X can do 1440p/60fps with a few compromises, but not 4K. Not at all. Unless, they're using a highly optimized version of the game we don't know about. ;-)

 

[Blinck]

Are we just ignoring the savings that comes with PC gaming as well because it fits a convenient narrative? Or are you just forgetting to put that into your calculation?

I spent a little over a $1000 on an i7 CPU, 16gig ram, 2tb, 660gtx x51. An overpriced prebuilt PC to be certain. Then spent money to upgrade the GPU several years later to a 970. Make no mistake I knowingly took a much more expensive path.

Compared to what I spent to buy a PS3 and then ps4 the difference is probably a good bit but I could of likely shaved a few hundred off if I built myself.

But then when you factor in the savings on games? That gap begins to close over time. Even games that a person buys day 1 on PC typically qualifies for a 15-25% discount on places like greenmamgaming and I don't have to wait for HD ports when I upgrade my GPU.

I would say you end up spending a higher initial investment to get a PC but done right, over the long run, the higher cost is greatly reduced by the savings in games.

So I really don't buy this argument of exorbitant costs for only extea icing on the cake in terms of quality and performance.

Can't argue against the savings in games. Those are ridiculous on PC ( I HAVE A GAMING PC BTW, and a PS4 ).
I'm sure in the long run ( and not that long) you end up saving quite a lot on games.

My main point is, people say the PC is a game changer when it comes to graphics, that it's power is so much greater than the consoles. But what we see time and time again are just PC ports with improvements like framerate and IQ, and LOD in this case.
Where is the game that shows that big gap between the consoles and the PC?

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, it took the new consoles for us to see what next gen games actually look like. Even though they have the hardware of old PC's now, it's on the consoles that we see the graphical leaps, and then comes the PC to show us the same graphics with these improvements that are only for us enthusiasts.

Do you really think that the improvements made to this game are a good showing for your graphic card compared to a PS4?

 

[viveks86]

It's pretty accurate if you replace the 4K with 1440p. A single Titan X can do 1440p/60fps with a few compromises, but not 4K. Not at all. Unless, they're using a highly optimized version of the game we don't know about. ;-)

Must be the GTA V: Shoddy Journalism Edition

Not to be too harsh on them, but the way they've mentioned it multiple times doesn't sound like a typo. Someone goofed up. Possible explanation:

• Their downsampling technique is actually doing it at 1440p and they assumed it's 4K
• They thought 1440p is actually 4K
• Somone sneaked in another Titan X while no one was looking

Take your pick, DF!

 

[JP]

No surprise really that overall it looks better on a decent PC but even with that I'm impressed by how well the console versions hold up. Having said that I'm still impressed what Rockstar managed to do with the 360 and PS3 versions of the game.

No excuse for people not to play it now as surely everybody has access to at least one piece of hardware to play it on and as far as I'm concerned it's a fantastic game. The first GTA since the PS2 games that I've actually completed the single player on (PS4) and I'll be happily messing around with it for months to come.

 

[alexandros]

The point is not to LOL at consoles being close to the "2K PC version", or how much better the PC version is than the "shitty consoles", or to shame people with lesser PC hardware using the benchmarks. Unfortunately that is how everyone ends up using the information.

Some console gamers perceive the comments about the differences between platforms or the efficiency of PC hardware compared to consoles as an assault against their favorite platform so their first instinct is to circle the wagons and attack the "enemy" by calling them elitists and such. What they often don't realize is that most of us who do comment on such threads don't have any interest whatsoever in belittling consoles or making fun of those who own them. Some very clearly do, most do not. I can only speak for myself of course but I imagine that quite a few other PC gamers that post on this forum are of the same mindset. I love PC gaming, I want my favorite platform to be treated with respect and to be judged fairly based on its actual merits and drawbacks, on this forum or anywhere else. I honestly don't care which platform people choose to game on, but I do speak up when I see people spreading FUD about PC gaming. Some of this FUD is so deeply ingrained in the general gamer mindset that a lot of effort is needed to stop it.

Even the mods themselves sometimes tend to label all such posts as platform war rhetoric. I honestly can't blame them and I fully understand why they want to keep such situations in check. I've been a part of many discussions on the subject and the result nearly always is a mess of a thread with two or three sides taking potshots at each other and endlessly recycling the same tired arguments. However, in some situations there is an actual need for the endless recycling of an argument. As Durante said, the "console=2x PC performance" myth is still alive and well today, even though we have hard data that comprehensively disproves it. Correcting people who still treat it as fact and pulling up evidence that points to the contrary isn't intended as an attack against 'shitty consoles' but as a way of ending this stupid myth once and for all, along with the misrepresentation of the PC platform in the eyes of the general gamer.

 

[Head.spawn]

There is some amazingly tactical downplaying at work here, lol.

It's a great port, I'm having a blast going through at mostly first person mode, 60fps locked.

 

[LordOcidax]

Wow, PS4 version looks really good compared to PC. Expected worse. Well done R*.

 

[Windom Earle]

Besides the framerate, which is obviously a huge plus, yes, I will keep saying the graphical upgrade is underwhelming.

Like you said, they are bound to the original engine. The thing is, the original engine will always be made for consoles, so the graphical improvements on PC's will always be, IMO, underwhelming and with diminishing returns when it comes to performance trade.

If you are happy that you have a high-end PC and the only improvements over the consoles are *generally* just IQ and framerate, then I'm glad that you are happy. I wouldn't be, because if I had a high.end PC I'd like it to be properly utilized, and we both know that if games were built with PC's in mind first, graphics today would be very much ahead of what we see now.

You're coming across extremely salty in this thread. I don't really see the point you are trying to make. In your opinion 60fps/better LOD, etc. do not matter? Ok I guess.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

Man..... this thread is giving me flashbacks of the Dying Light thread and the whole gif of the LOD on trees, which was being used as a base to call the PS4 version even lower than PC lowest settings *sigh* =/

I have to ask this to any PC user here. What do they even achieve by repeating the same stuff again and again about how GTX 750ti and i3 can beat/compete with PS4. Have we reached a point where every PC game can give equal performance to PS4 on that combo? Because if we haven't, it is useless to use that as a point as few examples don't outweight the majority. The most recent example being Mortal Kombat X on PC, which would be lucky to achieve the performance of PS4 on the same setup.

Regarding this thread and GTA V, it is nice to see that Rockstar has used the delay to the best and created a very solid port for PC users. What the comparison proved was that GTA V already reached its potential on PS4/XBO but this didn't stop Rockstar from even taking it a step further on PC. Everyone should be happy, and speaking for myself, I am happy that the PS4 port was a solid effort.

 

[Blinck]

You're coming across extremely salty in this thread. I don't really see the point you are trying to make. In your opinion 60fps/better LOD, etc. do not matter? Ok I guess.

Since I was thinking of getting the game on PC, I don't think I'm salty, just disappointed

You would also do well in reading my other posts, instead of just resorting to calling me "salty".

 

[alexandros]

I have to ask this to any PC user here. What do they even achieve by repeating the same stuff again and again about how GTX 750ti and i3 can beat/compete with PS4. Have we reached a point where every PC game can give equal performance to PS4 on that combo? Because if we haven't, it is useless to use that as a point as few examples don't outweight the majority. The most recent example being Mortal Kombat X on PC, which would be lucky to achieve the performance of PS4 on the same setup.

See my post above. MKX is one of the very few exceptions to the rule. The fact that you believe the opposite is true basically proves that repeating the same stuff again and again is still sadly necessary.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

First off, the pc version plays great (even at 1920x1080), but Damn... am I part of a minority (super pun intended, americans) that absolutely doesn't pay any mind to blades of grass, bushes trees etc? Obviously, we're past the point of square trees so let's ignore the fact that there's fewer reasons to skimp landscaping.

Draw distances aside, I just don't see the huge difference that's supposedly a game changer.

I obviously don't speak for everyone here but personally when I see these images it's cool and all that the visuals are improved, but you'll never notice how much the graphics are better than another version. However, when you combine all these little things it makes the whole game more cohesive and it's a lot more enjoyable because of it. Even with these small improvements I'm still glad I play multiplats on the PC, although I also would never sacrifice 60+ fps for anything.

 

[Marlenus]

As Durante said, the "console=2x PC performance" myth is still alive and well today, even though we have hard data that comprehensively disproves it. Correcting people who still treat it as fact and pulling up evidence that points to the contrary isn't intended as an attack against 'shitty consoles' but as a way of ending this stupid myth once and for all, along with the misrepresentation of the PC platform in the eyes of the general gamer.

Well yes and no about that point. GPU performance is pretty efficient on PCs so comparing an R7 265 to a PS4 seems fair to me. OTOH without the low level APIs of the consoles there is no way the console CPUs could perform as well as they do. If you look at how the R9 280 tanks when paired with the i3 imagine how it would perform if paired with a Jaguar CPU, it would be horrendous.

I like these articles though and I play on both consoles and PC. I like to see good ports and GTA V seems to be one of the best. The console performance is where you would expect it to be based on the performance of the R7 265 and the 750 Ti and the PC performance seems stable and bug free.

Some PC ports suck ass and other times the console version severely under utilises the available hardware and I do not like to support either scenario because it is just lazy.

 

[Nzyme32]

Man..... this thread is giving me flashbacks of the Dying Light thread and the whole gif of the LOD on trees, which was being used as a base to call the PS4 version even lower than PC lowest settings *sigh* =/

I have to ask this to any PC user here. What do they even achieve by repeating the same stuff again and again about how GTX 750ti and i3 can beat/compete with PS4. Have we reached a point where every PC game can give equal performance to PS4 on that combo? Because if we haven't, it is useless to use that as a point as few examples don't outweight the majority. The most recent example being Mortal Kombat X on PC, which would be lucky to achieve the performance of PS4 on the same setup.

The only things that are useful are if a PC owner has a similar system and wants to make the comparison to their own system, or to indicate how good the scalability of the game is to different hardware and its performance, when used in conjunction with other hardware and scalability options. The latter is the most important to indicate the quality of the game for the PC and also indicates some of the longevity and customisability the game can have.

The Dying Light situation does show a LOD that is higher at the lowest setting than a PS4, but that doesn't correlate to the game being "lowest settings" on PS4 overall - it is often never the case that a console version of a game conforms to any of the discrete settings available on PC, as they are often a mixture of different options or even with some not available - the comparisons being made are often bad for not pointing this out of look at it in detail. Even worse are gamers then using it as a childish competition

I get the feeling that Digital Foundry should have just written " DUH PC LOOKS BETTER, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?"

Insert and replace with what ever platform where neccessary

There is an argument to be made about such games having such disparity in capability versus the previous consoles, due the this round of consoles being produced at cost with components that existing PCs have been able to match (which was not possible in the prior generation), which makes some of these articles interesting to look at over time. However, generally I think the DF articles are not done in a meaningful way by forcing a console v PC argument for clicks. Analysis of the PC version at all levels of fidelity across varied hardware along with the console would be more valuable

 

[Nabbis]

The thing that truly makes this game shine on PC is the Kb/m combination. Fuck controllers.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

The thing that truly makes this game shine on PC is the Kb/m combination. Fuck controllers.

Kb/m in first person mode is the definitive way to play this game for me. I still play on controller a lot so I can play the game on my couch but kb/m is far better than I expected.

 

[IMACOMPUTA]

I get the feeling that Digital Foundry should have just written " DUH PC LOOKS BETTER, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?"

 

[On Demand]

"lets not argue about what makes the PC version better, let's argue how the PC version is the same."

Not at all. Just pointing out the thinking that "grassgate" between PS4 and XB1 is now somehow hypocritical because of the PC version.

2 different outcomes as i proved in my post. Overall of course the PC is version better depending if you have a powerful hardware for it.

 

[alexandros]

Well yes and no about that point. GPU performance is pretty efficient on PCs so comparing an R7 265 to a PS4 seems fair to me. OTOH without the low level APIs of the consoles there is no way the console CPUs could perform as well as they do. If you look at how the R9 280 tanks when paired with the i3 imagine how it would perform if paired with a Jaguar CPU, it would be horrendous.

I actually agree. Mantle showed that low level apis do provide performance improvements in terms of CPU usage but the real world benefits are less pronounced outside of extreme cases (weak cpus paired with powerful gpus or quad-sli monster rigs). It will be interesting to see the effect DX12 and Vulkan will have.

 

[sammyCYBORG]

I feel like a lot of the feelings of console owners is justified in some way because this gen the consoles are disappointingly gimped in terms of hardware.

I have a PS4 and X1 but I bought them knowing it would just be for exclusives since I have a good gaming PC. If I paid £300-£400 for a "next gen" console then saw them lagging so far behind the PC already on games that were multiplatform I would be pretty gutted/bitter.

Not saying I enjoy any consoles vs pc arguments, but I think it's a bit more complicated than just fanboyism this gen. Sony and MS didn't help themselves with those specs.

 

[alexandros]

Not at all. Just pointing out the thinking that "grassgate" between PS4 and XB1 is now somehow hypocritical because of the PC version.

I think it is a bit hypocritical. The PS4 is more powerful than the XBox One, just as any midrange PC is more powerful than the PS4. There shouldn't have been any controversy in either case but we all know things didn't turn out that way.

 

[Kinthalis]

... depending if you have a powerful hardware for it.

Why is this always a caveat that console gamers fele the need to reiterate. Is it not obvious?

It's like saying: The PS4 verison is better than the Xbone version... provided of course, (because some people might have forgotten, and you shall not forget, for if you do forget, then things might go awry, and regardless, it's never good to forget obvisous things like this!) that you own a PS4....

 

[jim2point0]

My point is, and this is obviously a personal opinion, the graphical improvements that we are getting on PC ports are very dissatisfying compared to the power that these PCs have and the money that they cost.

This guy. I agree with him.

 

[Windom Earle]

Since I was thinking of getting the game on PC, I don't think I'm salty, just disappointed

You would also do well in reading my other posts, instead of just resorting to calling me "salty".

So the PC version is much better than the console versions. (at least double fps, 4k, higher lod, better shadows, Tesselation, etc. etc.)... In your opinion it's still not good enough. I find it strange, but you're free to have that opinion.

 

[Kinthalis]

I feel like a lot of the feelings of console owners is justified in some way because this gen the consoles are disappointingly gimped in terms of hardware.

I have a PS4 and X1 but I bought them knowing it would just be for exclusives since I have a good gaming PC. If I paid £300-£400 for a "next gen" console then saw them lagging so far behind the PC already on games that were multiplatform I would be pretty gutted/bitter.

I agree this is absolutely a factor in the copious amount of salt that descend on ANY thread dealing with PC gaming performance from console GAF, but these peopel should at least pace themselves.

We've got, what? another 5+ years of the gap only widening? PC gmaing continuing to grow? How much salt do they plan on mining out?

 

[Sid]

Doesn't the i3/750Ti combo perform as well as the PS4 in pretty much every case?

 

[Durante]

Doesn't the i3/750Ti combo perform as well as the PS4 in pretty much every case?

Not really. And it really shouldn't actually, considering the specs of a 750ti.

What its performance at console-like settings in the vast majority of multiplatform titles does indicate is that there is no sign of a 2x efficiency difference. GPU efficiency is basically equal, and CPU efficiency only slightly lower in realistic scenarios -- and even that minor difference will be mitigated by lower-level APIs on PC soon.

 

[MrCunningham]

Really happy to see Rockstar take their PC ports more seriously with GTAV. This port looks superb.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

The only things that are useful are if a PC owner has a similar system and wants to make the comparison to their own system, or to indicate how good the scalability of the game is to different hardware and its performance, when used in conjunction with other hardware and scalability options. The latter is the most important to indicate the quality of the game for the PC and also indicates some of the longevity and customisability the game can have.

Basically this is what I love to see. I was interested in seeing how the hardware of PS4/XBO scales to PC version and it was great to know that Rockstar did a great effort on PS4/XBO.

The game being run on a GTX 750ti i3 should be good news for the majority of PC owners as this shows that they can take it a step further than the PS4/XBO version.

The Dying Light situation does show a LOD that is higher at the lowest setting than a PS4, but that doesn't correlate to the game being "lowest settings" on PS4 overall - it is often never the case that a console version of a game conforms to any of the discrete settings available on PC, as they are often a mixture of different options or even with some not available - the comparisons being made are often bad for not pointing this out of look at it in detail. Even worse are gamers then using it as a childish competition

I definitely agree. In the case of Dying Light, there was like a huge karma post (GIF) shared on reddit of the LOD gif from GAF, and it basically spread everywhere. This really irks me as just seeing the LOD doesn't show the true picture at all.

I don't deny that it was quite low on PS4, but AFAIK, they fixed it with a patch later so I will just chalk it up to "lazy devs" rushing for an early release.