Here's hoping that Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes will be on PC: 3-Way SLI GTX 780s powering Nvidia Surround 3.0!
Printable View
Here's hoping that Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes will be on PC: 3-Way SLI GTX 780s powering Nvidia Surround 3.0!
Why would you need all that horsepower? Ironically, the very console generation every PC user is lambasting for holding back graphics quality has released a number of games that visually destroy pretty much everything on the PC....Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
Hold on.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Are you saying that the current generation of consoles have better-looking games than current generation PC hardware is capable of producing?
I believe he's saying that there's been a few console games this generation that look better than what we're getting on PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
Partially agree, but would like some examples. I think IQ wise a console can't win from PC. Hard going from full AA/AF pc games to console games without cringing here and there.
Got an example?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Depends on your definition of "lambasting" I guess.
720p (at most), no AA, low fps, bad textures are not exactly quality features. Just because you have good content and smother everything with overdone shader and HDR effects doesn't make good graphics.
Aesthetics != Graphics
If one starts comparing the same game on both platforms the console will graphically look worse (Lower resolution, little or no AA, cheap textures and less advanced lighting). Don't understand why we even bring this up :S
A console game can still "look good" by all means, but thats just Aesthetics hand in hand with human emotion.
SKYMTL is not sayin anything else than this /\, he is just implying that the artists that work for the consoles generally do a better job. There is truth in this, but there is also the individuals taste, the most jaw dropping visual experience for me so far is the interior of the "spaceship" inside the mountain in Crysis 1, maybe second is the start of the Jet mission in BF3 and lets not forget the Caves in Dear Esther.
uncharted may be a good example i guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
and totally agreed with you except Aesthetics!=graphics part. yes they are not equal but we are talking about game graphics and Aesthetics involved in it because it is part of the game development imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kallenator
when we look at specs a console can never beat a pc (now) so if there is better looking game in console then any other pc game this is not the performance issue but developer issue.
if the console version looks better than the pc one its not the fault of the pc, but rather lazy dev syndrome.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to retort to "totally agreed with you except Aesthetics!=graphics part. yes they are not equal but"? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
And that is why I brought it up, because SKYMTL differentiated them from the start, and I wanted to underline that, because not everyone understand the difference.
That said, I wanna be sure that I don't misunderstand you and maybe even the other way around. So given this scenario:
In front of you is the beautiful painting, suddenly the aesthetics are removed, what are you left with?
Totally agree. I saw Skyrim on PS3. I cried.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
lol :D ok ok i know i talked like politicians.
as i am not that a painting person i will try to explain what i said more detailed.
this is totally what i am thinkingQuote:
Aesthetics != Graphics
If one starts comparing the same game on both platforms the console will graphically look worse (Lower resolution, little or no AA, cheap textures and less advanced lighting). Don't understand why we even bring this up :S
A console game can still "look good" by all means, but thats just Aesthetics hand in hand with human emotion.
and i am adding to this that while these are true when we are talking about games we cant seperate aesthetics and human emotions from graphics that easily. because games are not tech demos. like cryrsis. before it released i watch all tech demos of crysis with my jaws opened 1 meter wide but when the game come out i didnt like its graphics.
actually we both saying the same just with a little difference that i am not sure seperating aesthetics from graphics when we talk about a game is right or not.
also if SKYMTL differentiated them then i get him wrong because there is no way console can produce better graphics then pc in pure graphics point of view when developers push both systems to their limits.
i hope i express my self better this time. answering while working and eating is very hard :)
Darn it, you avoided my "trap" ^^
Thank you for clarifying. I see your point very clearly, and I am indeed having issues with that myself and how to unquestionably set them apart.
The reason for why I think it's reasonable is because the graphic engine renders what the artist see. The rendering part can be explained with numbers and math, the artist part cannot. That this color fits with that building with this lighting to create a certain mood is something only humans see.
I find it hard to comment on your Crysis 1 experience, was it something specific about the graphic engine or look that annoyed you? All I can think of is that the Tech-demos where somewhat polished and put the engine and the artists work in a far better light than what most of our enthusiasts computers could. What I remember about Crysis 1 first hand is that it was very taxing on my computer, I could not max it, and the computers that could would struggle from time to time still.
And I read that out from this sentence,Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
We as PC users are annoyed about the current generation of consoles holding back further advances in graphical rendering techniques because of old hardware
Many games released for the consoles still has better aesthetics than most computer titles.
Further my comment on SKYMTL's sentence is that he knows very well that PC's far out match the current consoles rendering capabilities, he would not make a mistake about this.
Lastly, I think this video explains it better than me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oK8UTRgvJU
Damn this thread has totally derailed.
I agree with UrbanSmooth here, even if every console game looked better it doesn't mean that a computer doesn't have the capability to do better. It would come down to implementation. Console exclusives might have better graphics from time to time but they're almost always made by massive game studios. PC exclusives are often done by smaller/indie studios with limited resources. Take a game available on both consoles and PC and compare the graphics, I can't think of a single one where the console will look better.
Need for Speed: Undercover is a prime example of motion blur and bloom/HDR being used to hide otherwise poor graphics, a good looking game should look good even without either of the above. Motion blur annoys me as it is always overdone, in reality changing from walking pace to a run doesn't give you tunnel vision, but with the amount of blur applied in most games it's enough to make up for textures from a decade ago. Another thing which annoys me is the lens flare, you don't spend your life looking through a camera. All of these things add to a game which looks good without good graphics.
For a game to have good graphics it must have high quality textures, very good lighting and shadow effects both soft and hard, very good fire effects which throw non-static shadows, very good looking water (and not just on the surface, Skyrim - waterfalls continue to fall as a fairly solid object under water as opposed to creating turbulance) and good particle effects such as smoke and sparks (another which fails badly most of the time as sparks are just yellow lines as opposed to a white center with a yellow or orange glow), etc, or as many as possible of the above. Bad graphics are normally masked by bucket loads of post processing to make them visually appealing.
We all know, console games developpers ( specially Asian developpers ), and push during 5 years to optimize the graphics engine and API they had to produce the best, and ofc allways override this best.. this pass from optimize the actual technic available for be less hungry on ressource and for be able to push new aspect of graphics aesthetics ... Some Asisan studio have do an incredible work for it ...
>But lets, be honest.. some have name "Uncharted" .. provide the same engine in different condition as you have them in pc, and the result will be really low... low texture resolutions, shadow and lights are absolutely not accurate .. the fact the over use of bloom, shaders HDR is exactly what you will hate on a pc games, due to the fact, it is over simplified
I think we are maybe too much used of a certain quality of effect, light, shadow, textures. ... but ofc you can get an aesthetics quality and a visual settings who seem.. just wow.. without all of that.
Games, on pc ask a lot of ressources for try use technic who need a lot of gpu, computing power ( and this is just a start ) .. on console games, you can use use some fake, but you try do your best for make it look good.
I will be a computer gamer for life most likely, it's sort of "in my blood".
However, I was watching my son play Borderlands 2 on a 360 with a good quality 1080p 50" plasma and surround tonight and it's just a nice gaming experience. When he plays the Uncharted games on the PS3 on a 60" LED panel with surround, it's a damn good gaming experience.
I've got a 2500K/GTX670/25 X 16 monitor and 990X/GTX680SLi/3 X 1080P 3d monitors, so I can do some of the nicer PC experiences, but you have to give consoles their due. It's not the Golden Axe and Eternal Champions I was playing on my Sega Genesis on a 27" tube tv in ancient times anymore.
Also think consoles drive more variety in game development that we benefit from.
I've only bought an Xbox360 for Forza 4 and the lack of any in race AA was a real let down for me. Can't comment on other games apart from what I see on screenshots.
Try watching "HD" videos of console gameplay on YouTube. By now, 99% of us should have at least 1080p monitors, and viewing the very muddy, disgusting, and insulting 720p console gameplay can be very nauseating. Good riddance, PS3, Xbox 360, and...LOL Nintendo...
Bring on the 1080p consoles, already! They're only late to the party by 5 or 6 years. After 2013, friends, we should see graphics take off once again! ODE TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF VIDEO GAMES!!
Uh, the Wii U actually runs most of its games at 1080p.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
One can only hope. I would also like the game-play to match as well. The Console gaming experience tends to be dumbed down a bit compared to what we used to get when there weren't any around.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
whats your point? the Wii U is the generation after 'PS3, 360, and Wii'Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Ha, 1080p cartoons don't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
by then pcgaming will have higher résolution...
A note on consoles, when they released most people did not have an HDTV, let alone a 1080p HDTV. The vast majority of gamers were running their 360's and PS3's off ye old CRT TVS, and for the few with HDTVs the majority were 1080i or 720p, so the consoles just did everything in 720p. There was no point in pushing anything above 720p because almost nobody had a TV to actually use it. It would have been pants on head jaw droppingly stupid to release content and spend time on things people couldn't use.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
Lastly, I'll take gaming at 720p on console over gaming on a PC just about any day of the week. If I want graphics and whizbang, I'll watch a damn blue ray.