None of these really made use of any features apart from the extra performance compared to the consoles of that time.
Doom3 and HL2 have even been ported to the Xbox one without suffering major feature loss!
*spin-off* Console Hardware Holding Back PC Graphics?
- Thread starter djskribbles
- Start date
- Status
None of these really made use of any features apart from the extra performance compared to the consoles of that time.
Doom3 and HL2 have even been ported to the Xbox one without suffering major feature loss!
Once again, and for the last time just in case any one still doesn't get it.
I'm not saying the high end PC exlcusive market hasn't all but died out.
I'm not saying the reasons for this are not financial or market size based or any of the other reasons why PC gaming is in decline (piracy etc)...
I'm simply saying that as a result of all this (or any other reason you want to give, it doesn't matter since its totally irrelivant to my point) high end PC graphics are now tied almost directly to console graphics.
You may want to argue that PC graphics have never exceeded console graphics, or that there was never such a thing as a PC exclusive, or that without consoles PC graphics would not progress beyond the sims, but that still doesn't change the fact that today, and for the forseeable future, PC graphics are tied to and thus constrained by console graphics.
I'm not saying the high end PC exlcusive market hasn't all but died out.
I'm not saying the reasons for this are not financial or market size based or any of the other reasons why PC gaming is in decline (piracy etc)...
I'm simply saying that as a result of all this (or any other reason you want to give, it doesn't matter since its totally irrelivant to my point) high end PC graphics are now tied almost directly to console graphics.
You may want to argue that PC graphics have never exceeded console graphics, or that there was never such a thing as a PC exclusive, or that without consoles PC graphics would not progress beyond the sims, but that still doesn't change the fact that today, and for the forseeable future, PC graphics are tied to and thus constrained by console graphics.
Because, with poorly-done ports, requirements continue to go up! How can PCs be holding graphics back if the specs aren't being held back?
Oh, come on. Now you're going to quibble about what games are designed for consoles and what games are designed for PCs? By essentially using the circular argument that 'PC games are the ones that run well on PC'?
The point is that not long ago a bunch of these games (excluding Japanese studios, naturally) would have been made for PCs in the first place!
I remember a post where Joker said "For PC you let the users be beta testers.." regarding PC ports.. go figure on requirements and user satisfaction.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Makes one kind of wonder what the hell are people going to do with Cypress X2 and cards like that... when even your card runs the console ports really well.
Now you're arguing semantics, because what you're talking about there are console graphics ported to the PCs...
What other distinguishing features can we use, other then what's the main target platform? Gameplay mechanics, even menus, are based in all the above mentioned games on what a console requires. GTA in particular... but compare Bioshock to System Shock 2, or Gears to Unreal, and the design changes are still obvious.
PC games have also been mentioned, like Starcraft and Diablo and WOW and SIMS.
But now they're console games. And the point actually was that PC gaming is held back by console hardware (see title of thread) - but what does the X360 have to do with Starcraft 2 or Warcraft?
Of course if the topic (and the point) was something like "hardcore gaming migrates from PCs to consoles" then I wouldn't argue at all.
No, you are the one arguing semantics, since you're trying to redefine what a PC game is. If, using pjb's example, consoles were 2x more powerful, would we see better graphics on PC? According to you, yes -- but it's still not holding back 'PC graphics' because this game, running on a PC, still isn't a PC game!
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Well it's a fact that if consoles would be more powerful, then PC ports would also be prettier, but the fact that they are still ports can't be totally ignored. It's like a beggar claiming that the rich man is holding him back, when he only got 5€ from the rich guy, when the beggar could have easily spent 10€. PC should be happy that they are even receiving the ports, because that's what they are, and in that context it's kind of out of place to call it holding back.
I remember a post where Joker said "For PC you let the users be beta testers.." regarding PC ports.. go figure on requirements and user satisfaction.
C'mon though, it's always been that way with PC games! I've been PC gaming since there was a PC, 1984, and it's always been a bit of a trick to find a PC game that just worked without bugs, crashes, tweaks, and so on. Remember trying to get Wing Commander to work with ems memory? Bugs in the later Ultima games? Uncompletable quests in others? Crashes to dos prompt? Did Elder Scrolls Daggerfall work smoothly for you? I could go on for pages, PC games have had issues long before console games had any influence on them.
In any case, if you guys are right and consoles are indeed holding back PC games, then I'd expect Diablo 3 to be the new benchmark in graphics excellence, since it is PC only after all. I guess we'll see!
Were they running on PC?
More importantly, were they setting the bar for what could be accomplished on PCs at the time?
But no one's arguing that.
A/ whilst the pc's gfx card can delivier fast FPS + higher res/AA than consoles thus it perhaps is held back somewhat
B/ at the same time a lot of laptops etc ship with intel integrated gfx IIRC now >50% of pc's are laptops, whereas is you targetted pc only you'ld perhaps target these as a base, since the meat + potatoes (the consoles) are a lot higher yould target this as a base
If u can make head or tail of that, All in all Ild say PC graphics prolly have a slight advantage using console specs as a base
B/ at the same time a lot of laptops etc ship with intel integrated gfx IIRC now >50% of pc's are laptops, whereas is you targetted pc only you'ld perhaps target these as a base, since the meat + potatoes (the consoles) are a lot higher yould target this as a base
If u can make head or tail of that, All in all Ild say PC graphics prolly have a slight advantage using console specs as a base
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Consoles are only holding back PC-games in a very simplified equation. PC-market couldn't sustain the high budgets that the modern games take to make. If consoles wouldn't exist, then PC would have lot's of low budget games that wouldn't push the hardware. There wouldn't be games like GT 5 or other big projects that take years to make, at least not many of them. Today with console ports PC gets much more high budget games, than it would ever get without consoles, so it's really bit of a stretch to say that consoles are holding PC back.
SedentaryJourney
Regular
I agree that for gamers running at the bleeding edge there might be a large PC/Console performance delta, but I'd actually wager on average that the gap between Console and PC is smaller than ever. The fact that we're not seeing PC games that look like they're 'just not possible' on any other platform may have to do with how similar Consoles and PCs are these days. I mean even Crysis looks doable on console.
BTW pjbliverpool what in terms of game technology is being limited on PC? Something along the lines of "we had to drop feature X because we couldn't support it on console".
BTW pjbliverpool what in terms of game technology is being limited on PC? Something along the lines of "we had to drop feature X because we couldn't support it on console".
I know that in regard capabilities, functionalities, throughput, VRam etc. consoles GPU are clearly lagging behind top middle end PC. But if you read some Ms presentations about multi-threaded rendering you will see that Pc is lagging behind the 360, directx 11 bring parity between both platform in this regard. Actually what I say is a lie, no matter the hardware users run directx9, 10 soon 11 etc. Basically Ms made a good job a splitting Pc gamers users base as for benefit from newer directx you need the proper OS...
But manufacturers doesn't help much either, Nvidia didn't think that directx 10.1 was worth it, Intel force Ms to declare its igp compliant, etc.
Basically Pc world is a mess by nature and I hasn't received much help lately form either software or hardware provider but I wouldn't call consoles as culprit for this situation.
I hope thing will get better and than directx11 will become quickly the widely accepted standard Pc gaming realm needs. Compute shaders will bring new thing thing on the table people are working on it.
TheWretched
Regular
I don't even think consoles hold back PC graphics that much, at least for the consumers.
Who here can play the more demanding games at much better settings than the console version runs?
I mean, yeah, if you have a top of the line PC, games could look much better, but you have to think about the average PC gamer here too.
Looking at Valve's surveys, the average gamer "just now" has gotten his dual core and only 28% even have a DX10 GPU. You don't throw away most of your consumers just like that, just to have better graphics, when nobody can really play it (see Crysis sales).
Who here can play the more demanding games at much better settings than the console version runs?
I mean, yeah, if you have a top of the line PC, games could look much better, but you have to think about the average PC gamer here too.
Looking at Valve's surveys, the average gamer "just now" has gotten his dual core and only 28% even have a DX10 GPU. You don't throw away most of your consumers just like that, just to have better graphics, when nobody can really play it (see Crysis sales).
Prophecy2k
Veteran
pjbliverpool...
I think what you are calling PC High End Graphics, is in actual fact not PC high end graphics but graphics engines and tech "designed" for consoles because of their larger more profitable market.
Real PC High End Graphics, died after Crysis Warhead released and Crytek decided to move to consoles. Real PC High End Graphics, i.e. designed for bleeding edge PC tech and beyond (i.e. like Crysis at the time of release) no longer exists, as the costs are too high and there is too much working against such a product becoming commercially successful (e.g. piracy, heterogenous platform, tiny top-end hardware consumer market).
You're trying to say that those console ports, i.e. graphics tech designed for consoles are the NEW PC High End Graphics, when in actual fact they're CONSOLE High End Graphics: also throw out on PC to make some extra bob.
All these comments about consoles holding the PC space back are inane. To make such an assertion to have to ignore too much...
I think what you are calling PC High End Graphics, is in actual fact not PC high end graphics but graphics engines and tech "designed" for consoles because of their larger more profitable market.
Real PC High End Graphics, died after Crysis Warhead released and Crytek decided to move to consoles. Real PC High End Graphics, i.e. designed for bleeding edge PC tech and beyond (i.e. like Crysis at the time of release) no longer exists, as the costs are too high and there is too much working against such a product becoming commercially successful (e.g. piracy, heterogenous platform, tiny top-end hardware consumer market).
You're trying to say that those console ports, i.e. graphics tech designed for consoles are the NEW PC High End Graphics, when in actual fact they're CONSOLE High End Graphics: also throw out on PC to make some extra bob.
All these comments about consoles holding the PC space back are inane. To make such an assertion to have to ignore too much...
Well, IMO this is just a blip in history, a brief period where some developers thought they'd flirt with pushing PC tech and seeing what happens. Traditionally, as Joker has already stated, PC developers just went with a common denominator, and any use of higher end, contemporary hardware was restricted to a few token guestures like slightly better shadows or reflections or such.
If consoles didn't exist, the current state may not be much different, apart from perhaps a higher common denominator for PCs where current console gamers will have instead better PC hardware. eg. I have an ATi 9600. A couple of times I've looked at the cheapness of modern cards, yet still avoided them because I don't need them. If the consoles didn't exist, I'd have bought something better. But still cheap no doubt! One could even argue that the consoles are a higher standard than many of the PC market, and have actually upped the common denominator a notch from old DX9 parts that are commonplace.
- Status
Similar threads
