[Solarus]

I don't post alot (mostly...well honestly because u guyz intimidate me lol u guyz are so knowledgeable I dont see where I would fit in) but I have a question. Why exactly do people want new consoles? I mean the current ones are comparable to current high end PCs. I mean in terms of how the games look not the "power" when I see the PC version of games there is no real difference in graphix othr than resolution. Compare BF3 on 360 and PC. They look the same only difference is resoluton. I had a discuss with a few poepl and a mod (whos a PC fanboy) and was trying to have a decent convo but they were making up stupid points. I dont want to bring in other discsusions but I think u guyz should read it and see whos right? I mean other than resoluton why else would console games look just like PC version if consoles were weaker? Then graphix of the year always go to consoles should tell you something?

Im honestly curious and am hoping someone who actually knows what there talking about can explain it to me, cuz from what I see their comparable.

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...652701&page=86

[Mize]

If you don't see a difference playing games with all the eye-candy cranked up on a high end PC vs. and Xbox then you definitely don't need anything more than a current gen console.

[Sigfried1977]

I agree with you. Mostly. Doesn't mean I don't want new hardware, though. The reason console games and PC games are comparable despite the enormous gulf in power is that hardly anyone makes PC games anymore. They make console games instead, and if we're lucky we get some half assed dx11 goodies when buying the PC version.
It's a lowest common demoninator thing, and unless that lowest common demoninator gets replaced, PC games will remain stuck in the last decade, just as the consoles.

[Rodéric]

The controller and the place in which the activity takes place.
You're with a pad in your armchair/sofa, or sitting at a desk with your keyboard and mouse.
(Although PC also have pads and joysticks.)

[SteelOak]

Why exactly do people want new consoles?

I still find console graphics impressive and I really like watching developers squeeze everything they can from current console hardware. So many tricks and ingenious ways to make console games look great.
But when all of this comes at a cost (greater and greater over time) like lower resolution, low res textures, narrow-corridor levels, cutting out things like animations or lack of a "simple" anisotropic filtering (which for me DESTROYS otherwise great looking games)... It's hard not to think that it's really time for new hardware. Everything that stil looks good now could look that much better on more powerful hardware, even without a significant increase in man-hours/budget. Trying to create a visually impressive game in 2012 while at the same time limiting it to work on a 2005 era hardware sounds like a waste.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Solarus

I mean other than resoluton why else would console games look just like PC version if consoles were weaker? Then graphix of the year always go to consoles should tell you something?

Im honestly curious and am hoping someone who actually knows what there talking about can explain it to me, cuz from what I see their comparable.

Are you asking whether current gen consoles are as powerful as high end PC's except for the PC's ability to render in higher resolution?

[Solarus]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Are you asking whether current gen consoles are as powerful as high end PC's except for the PC's ability to render in higher resolution?

Well thats the thing, PC gamers always talk about how PC games can't be done on consoles. Crysis 1 was always said couldn't be done then Crytek put it on consoles and it looks just as good as the PC versions. Outside of resoluton I havent seen a PC game that couldnt be done on consoles. Both crysis and witcher 2 look just as good on console and they even got better lighting. PC hardware from the same timeframe as consoles cant even run the games as well. that shows just how advanced the consoles are and how powerful they are if developers work on them. Then when next gen consoles do get here and are doing 1080p PCs cant even use the resoluton argument anymore.

[TheD]

Originally Posted by Solarus

Well thats the thing, PC gamers always talk about how PC games can't be done on consoles. Crysis 1 was always said couldn't be done then Crytek put it on consoles and it looks just as good as the PC versions. Outside of resoluton I havent seen a PC game that couldnt be done on consoles. Both crysis and witcher 2 look just as good on console and they even got better lighting. PC hardware from the same timeframe as consoles cant even run the games as well. that shows just how advanced the consoles are and how powerful they are if developers work on them. Then when next gen consoles do get here and are doing 1080p PCs cant even use the resoluton argument anymore.

Crysis 1 has hugely cut down GFX on consoles vs the PC version!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...jgWl7tM#t=229s
Second level overlooking the village, seems a bit different doesn't it?!


Witcher 2 also does not look even close to as good and the lighting system is the same or worse, just changing the lighting does not make it technically better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQbJ6oQznw
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...d-720p-gallery

[Solarus]

Originally Posted by TheD

Crysis 1 has hugely cut down GFX on consoles vs the PC version!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...jgWl7tM#t=229s
Second level overlooking the village, seems a bit different doesn't it?!


Witcher 2 also does not look even close to as good and the lighting system is the same or worse, just changing the lighting does not make it technically better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDQbJ6oQznw
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...d-720p-gallery

the witcher 2 video looks the same except for the tent area, and they probably changed it for artistic reasons. other than that the lighting itself looked just as good if not better on 360. i don't think the inclusion of nuclear bloom on pc means its better. The digital foundry article even says the lighting is better more natural on 360, then you had pc gamers getting mad that the better lighting wasn't in the EE version of witcher2 is telling.

I don't want to turn this into some gamefaq style fight of pc vs console, these are just things that i and others notice. despite wticher being a pc game built for pc it runs just as well on 360. with the supposed power difference i expected alot more. i want to see something that just is impossible for consoles to do.

also isn't crysis on consoles using cryengine 3? i don't think there can be an argument of which version has better lighting.

[Andrew Lauritzen]

Originally Posted by Solarus

the witcher 2 video looks the same except for the tent area, and they probably changed it for artistic reasons. other than that the lighting itself looked just as good if not better on 360.

Lol what? Look at picture 38 (among others)! And by the way that's depth of field you're seeing, not bloom.

Originally Posted by Solarus

with the supposed power difference i expected alot more. i want to see something that just is impossible for consoles to do.

Battlefield 3 high/ultra, especially multiplayer. Just disregard every other game and keep it simple. If you don't see the difference in that example then we're beyond the realm of talking sense, so let's just close the thread.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by Solarus

Well thats the thing, PC gamers always talk about how PC games can't be done on consoles. Crysis 1 was always said couldn't be done then Crytek put it on consoles and it looks just as good as the PC versions.

Putting aside the fact that it doesn't as others have already shown, whether a game can be done on a platform says nothing about the relative power of that platform. You have to take into account other factors like the level of graphics the game is putting out, the efficiency of the engine, the level of optimisation made for each platform and API overhead.

The fact of the matter is that an exact replica of Crysis using CE2 would indeed be completely impossible on modern consoles. It took 4 years of research, a completely new engine and a scaling back of the graphics to make it happen. I'm not sure what that proves anything other than people were quite short sighted about how optimised Crysis was back in 2006.

Outside of resoluton I havent seen a PC game that couldnt be done on consoles.

Well if you're talking with the exact same level of graphical fidelity (discounting resolution) then you just aren't looking closely enough. In fact the vast majority of modern games sport higher settings than their console counterparts these days on PC (ignoring resolution/AA/framerate). The differences are subtle in many cases and not so subtle in others but regardless, the consoles are unable to replicate them or they would have shipped with those same settings in the first place. In fact games that make absolutely no improvement between console and PC are pretty much the exception these days and get called out as such, e.g. Rage.

If you want to look at a good example then look no further than Crysis 2. A much better comparison point than Crysis 1 since it was launched on both platforms at the same time on the same engine. And the PC settings of Crysis 2, go well, well in excess of the consoles settings even when not at the highest 'ultra' settings as stated by the developers themselves.

PC hardware from the same timeframe as consoles cant even run the games as well. that shows just how advanced the consoles are and how powerful they are if developers work on them.

Not really, it just shows how PC's have a higher API overhead and get no where near as much optimisation as consoles do. The hardware itself in consoles is comparable to that which was available for PC's when when they launched. If someone were to build a game today using today latest engines specifically optimised for say a high end Athlon X2 and R580 then it would have the potential to look better than anything released on consoles today.

The simply fact is that today's high end PC hardware is 10-20x more powerful than what's in the consoles depending on what you measure. That's not open for debate, it's a known fact. That power isn't used anywhere near as efficiently as what's available in consoles but it is there and if someone whereto try and use it fully you'd see a game that current consoles couldn't hope to look close to.

Then when next gen consoles do get here and are doing 1080p PCs cant even use the resoluton argument anymore.

I see it the other way, since consoles won;t be able to rely on running at lower resolutions to make up the power deficit we'll a lot more core graphical improvements in PC games from very early on.

[AlphaWolf]

PC games don't get the most out of PCs because most of the PC's being used aren't much more powerful than consoles.

[Kasersky]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

PC games don't get the most out of PCs because most of the PC's being used aren't much more powerful than consoles.

that doesnt stop people from using the most highest end pc to compare to console. whenever comparisons are made.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

PC games don't get the most out of PCs because most of the PC's being used aren't much more powerful than consoles.

You'd be hard pressed to find any modern PC which was purchased with the intent of gaming (even light gaming) that isn't significantly more powerful than the current consoles.

And high end PC's are used in such comparisons because that's what's available to anyone wishing to game on a PC. No one would use a Wii to represent the power of modern consoles or an iPhone 3G to represent smart phone power so why use old or low end PC's to represent that?

[metacore]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

You'd be hard pressed to find any modern PC which was purchased with the intent of gaming (even light gaming) that isn't significantly more powerful than the current consoles.

And yet, last fall, I saw many examples on my pc with e7200@3.2ghz,8800gts, when this card was destroyed by xbox360. Examples: MW3 at 15f-20ps at similar resolution to console, skyrim at 30 but with huge dips , and total unplayable disaster in battlefield 3 (playable only in tank and jet levels) even at lowes settings and 1024/768. The only things better are unreal games. I know this is 8800 gts, but on paper it is two times more powerful than xenos... I bet on similar results on mid range cards ( x600 type)from following series.

And when I think about whats inside current mid- high end graphics card with >15 times in raw performance in texture, bandwidth, polygon, shading , additional stages in pipeline and many other advancements and what is this capable, and after 7 years i only see battlefield 3 with cosmetic improvements it blows mi mind.

Pc hardware is such underutilized nowadays. I would go further, to me it's waste of money. IQ improvements are to little. It almost feels like only thing used is few more ram chips. Remember when last gen after only 3-5 years since console launches we had this gulf in graphics:
MoH rising sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72oAurHJNRw
MoH pacific assault
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGmjeW8R_AQ

Not to mention comparison like: Timesplitters future perfect vs FEAR, only after 4-5 years( and more, FC, D3, HL2, B2, UT2004 and others). Today after almost 7 years we have some half assed dx11 like crytec tessellation implementation sponsored and other smoke and mirrors by nvidia that does not translate in wow factor at the screen like in last gen. I would say we had improvements on this scale only after year in games like moh frontline and allied assault.

It's really a shame. Even console exclusives can still be beyond pc games. Look at uncharted with water simulation, models , lighting ,sand/snow effects animation and even textures and compare it to the wicher2 ... When i see bragging from pc crowd about graphics and resolution ( higher gap last too) gen i admit it makes me laugh. Maybe they all have really short memory...

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by metacore

And yet, last fall, I saw many examples on my pc with e7200@3.2ghz,8800gts, when this card was destroyed by xbox360. Examples: MW3 at 15f-20ps at similar resolution to console, skyrim at 30 but with huge dips , and total unplayable disaster in battlefield 3 (playable only in tank and jet levels) even at lowes settings and 1024/768.

The only way for this to be true is if you are running the PC games at much higher settings than the console. The following benchmarks show that even the integrated HD4000 can easily handle BF3 at low settings and console+ resolutions and the 8800GTS would easily outperform an HD4000.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page14.asp

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/t...770k-review/14

This time will be diffrent, this engines will be optimized from the ground up towards consoles. And if the architectures which they choose( for example even havier MT like ibms 4 threads per core or some kinde of fusion type design with strong point on low latency high bandwidth connection , interposers or maybe edrams) will have strong points where pc bottlenecks are, there will be nasty few years on pc ports side...

Today's games are already optimised from the ground up for consoles, that's not going to change significantly next generation - engines are still going to be built on PC workstations. What will change is the PC's ability to rely on a much more efficient API (DX11) than it's had to do this generation (DX9), a lack of requirement to use more power running at higher resolutions because consoles will also be targeting 1080p and most importantly, the far greater relative limitation on power draw for the consoles this time round. I expect all this all adds up to even mid range PC's faring well in next gen console games from day 1 and the gap widening rapidly from there.

[metacore]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

The only way for this to be true is if you are running the PC games at much higher settings than the console. The following benchmarks show that even the integrated HD4000 can easily handle BF3 at low settings and console+ resolutions and the 8800GTS would easily outperform an HD4000.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page14.asp

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/t...770k-review/14

I said : " (playable only in tank and jet levels)" , and you are linking benchmarks from "thunder run"(tank level). Anything other than this level( maybe train), with only two shooting AI's and performance is unacceptable ( muliplayer basically unplayable). Yo can see in this movie ( from 3:00)
http://youtu.be/ylYwTWV1aHg

Guy claims it is running at 720p medium . Look at that dips ( or more accurately freezes), look at those shadows, which are somehow much worse than console version. Moreover scenes in this movie are nothing intensive, add few more solders, runing and grenades and you are seeing slide show. Ironically MW3 was even worse.

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

Today's games are already optimised from the ground up for consoles, that's not going to change significantly next generation - engines are still going to be built on PC workstations. What will change is the PC's ability to rely on a much more efficient API (DX11) than it's had to do this generation (DX9), a lack of requirement to use more power running at higher resolutions because consoles will also be targeting 1080p and most importantly, the far greater relative limitation on power draw for the consoles this time round. I expect all this all adds up to even mid range PC's faring well in next gen console games from day 1 and the gap widening rapidly from there.

I was talking about beginnig of last gen, remember quake, oblivion ports?, Those were pcgames/engines fast ported to xbox 360. Remember all the shock /complaining about in order CPUs, multi threading and necessity of rebuilding engines etc?.And by the time they were somehow optimized, and pc cached up with brute force... This will not be the case this time. Another thing is full switch to console centric development. Look at skyrim which stock version is closer between pc and 360 than oblivion was six years ago...
This time with this console centric development, new hardware which may have strong points where pc's are weak (interposers with very low latency connections/ high bandwidth, some crazy threading like 4 way IBM in P7/a2, edrams. I bet minimum one of these will end up in consoles.) AND add much smaller/ maybe none( from prespective of average pc)power advantage... There are truly none developers interested in truly pushing PC anymore. Another thing, there are surely powerful forces, namely console manufactures which will depend on seeing these boxes as truly next gen by publics end even geeks and may persuade devs to making console versions stand out for some time/not making pc version/making conversion from last gen machines.
Remember pc versions of Just cause, GRAW, not releasing force unleashed,cod 3, bad company "because pc is to slow". I feel that combination of all this, will make few years of nasty ports on PC ( an probably there will be no light in the tunnel for pc gamers like crysis was last time...)Console exclusives level , let alone higher will be no match for small pc devs.

About API. I don't listen too much these reassurances about efficiency, Dx11 pc-console parity? yeah right , just like parity of dx9 with console and pc at the beginnings... Gosh, I remember all these buzzwords : dx10,stream out, SM4.0, geometry shading and fake screens from flight simulator, and now these "monster" can't even play b3 like a console... Few years later we have third generation of dx11 cards and not a single game have efficient, groundbreaking implementation of any features . Consoles will gain new efficiencies too, and soon we will see new excuses about new API needed, and at the same time excuses about fragmentation of pc base which will be cause of not using it...

[AlphaWolf]

No I really wouldn't. You can't just compare to PC's sold today, compare to that PC someone bought 3 or 4 years ago (not high end) and is still using. That's what developers need to target when making a PC game.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

No I really wouldn't. You can't just compare to PC's sold today, compare to that PC someone bought 3 or 4 years ago (not high end) and is still using. That's what developers need to target when making a PC game.

Your criteria was "most PC's being used". In the context of the thread I assume you mean PC's being used for mainstream (console type) gaming. That excludes PC's bought with no intention of being used for gaming or for very casual gaming (flash, Sims etc...).

I think you'll find the vast majority of systems being used today for mainstream level gaming are significantly beyond the current generation consoles. Even 4 years ago you'd have to have been buying pretty low end to get something weaker than a console and if you're still using a low end GPU from 4 years ago then odds are you're not using your PC for gaming at all and thus developers have no reason to target you.

When you can get a GPU for $50 sporting 2 or 3 times more power than the best consoles plus a more advanced feature set then it makes no sense to think of the average PC as being not much more powerful than consoles since the "average" PC isn't being used as a gaming machine.

[AlphaWolf]

You're operating under the impression that there aren't people out there still using an 8600 (or less or it's like) for gaming. The fact that you can buy something inexpensive that would be quite superior isn't really relevant, the simple truth is that many gamers do not.

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

You're operating under the deluded impression that there aren't people out there still using an 8600 (or less or it's like) for gaming. The fact that you can buy something inexpensive that would be quite superior isn't really relevant, the simple truth is that many gamers do not.

what's more, the $50 GPU is using 128bit ddr3 and so has as much bandwith as console GPU (less if you consider x360's edram). way more FLOPS though, which works well for pixel shaders at higher res, but consoles are good at showing many objects and pieces of foliage - low API overhead plays a role too.

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

You're operating under the impression that there aren't people out there still using an 8600 (or less or it's like) for gaming. The fact that you can buy something inexpensive that would be quite superior isn't really relevant, the simple truth is that many gamers do not.

Sure there are still people out there using GPU's like that to game with but I'll be the vast majority of that already small niche aren't using their PC as a primary games platform on the same level as a console. Or to put it another way most people that want to use a PC as a platform for playing modern mainstream games on a semi regular basis (i.e. the way a console it used) will be on significantly newer/more powerful hardware. And if they aren't ehn they have the option to be for very little money.

Therefore, if looking at the state of gaming PC's compared with consoles, I'd still say that the average gaming PC is far more powerful.

[ultragpu]

You want new consoles because you want the quantum leap in graphics, physics and all that works to the current gen consoles. Current gen looks fine but they're really starting to get stale, even Naughty Dog admit this when UC3 won most of the best looking graphic awards last year. Technology has to advance at some point to pave the way for more artistic freedom and vision, it really doesn't matter how good the console games look compare to a modern PC when the leap in power is withhold anyway.

[ToTTenTranz]

This thread is hilarious, in a bad way.
When I get the time (and if the thread didn't close in the meanwhile), I'll post some screenshots of my heavily modded skyrim and dare anyone to post a console shot that can get remotely similar.

[Ninjaprime]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

This thread is hilarious, in a bad way.
When I get the time (and if the thread didn't close in the meanwhile), I'll post some screenshots of my heavily modded skyrim and dare anyone to post a console shot that can get remotely similar.

What does a heavily modded game have to do with anything? Thats like saying PC games look like crap because the 360/PS3 remakes of old xbox/PS2 games look better than the old PC versions.