I think we could do with a few benchmarks of Crysis 2, Skyrim and Battlefield 3 at real consoles settings to put a few things to rest
I'll see what I can do
Current Consoles vs High End PCs
- Thread starter Solarus
- Start date
- Status
I'll see what I can do
Svensk Viking
Regular
I do see where the TC is coming from
In some PC games I can see a difference, but in my eyes the differences don't stick out to me like for example Doom 3 Xbox vs PC...Doom 3 on Xbox even had remade levels
In general though, what sticks out to me most is pop-ins and sluggish framerates
In some PC games I can see a difference, but in my eyes the differences don't stick out to me like for example Doom 3 Xbox vs PC...Doom 3 on Xbox even had remade levels
In general though, what sticks out to me most is pop-ins and sluggish framerates
If you look at the differences in the quantity and quality of the hardware resources in a current -gen console vs. a high-end PC you should start out with a healthy dose of skepticism towards the premise in the OP.
From there, you might want to start looking at the large number of alternate possibilities for why the OP and others might perceive the IQ/performance differences between console and high-end PC to be marginal that don't have anything to do with what the hardware is actually capable of outputting for any given game.
If you can get past all of that, it might be worth exploring whether there's any validity to the claim of any kind of parity between console and high-end PC visuals.
From there, you might want to start looking at the large number of alternate possibilities for why the OP and others might perceive the IQ/performance differences between console and high-end PC to be marginal that don't have anything to do with what the hardware is actually capable of outputting for any given game.
If you can get past all of that, it might be worth exploring whether there's any validity to the claim of any kind of parity between console and high-end PC visuals.
Everyone thats ever seen my PC is always blown away by what they see, Crysis always makes people look in amazement and it's convinced quite a few of them to move to PC.
A question on my mind to all the people that say there is not a big visual difference, have you guys played a decent modern PC?
If you've only seen a low to mid-range PC then I can understand where the opinion is coming from.
A question on my mind to all the people that say there is not a big visual difference, have you guys played a decent modern PC?
If you've only seen a low to mid-range PC then I can understand where the opinion is coming from.
Last edited by a moderator:
The differences in graphics these days are certainly subtle, no doubt less pronounced than they have been in the past. It's not surprising that some people don't see the difference if they don't have much first hand experience with PC games. No-one who looks properly can claim there's no difference at all but those differences will matter to varying degrees to different people. It's like some people look at the Mona Lisa and just see a painting while others see a masterpiece, I guess it just depends on what you're looking for and how discerning you are.
For me, high resolution, high quality AA and a rock solid 60fps with no tearing make a world of difference, and if we're completely honest, it's a big deal to console gamers too, at least going off the discussions you see comparing the tiniest differences between the two major platforms (which really do pale in comparison to the differences you'll see with a PC version). Core graphical improvements are often just the icing on the cake in many cases - although they can make a world of difference to my eyes in a small minority of games. In fact I've actually got Crysis 2 sitting on my shelf upstairs unopened. I could run it at 1080p/60fps at console settings right now if I wanted but I prefer to wait until I've got a DX11 GPU and play it at maximum settings.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that would say the difference between Low and Ultra in Crysis 2 does not justify the purchase of a £250 graphics card and I can't really argue with that, but then, they can't really argue that the experience itself isn't better. And if I'm happy to spend that kind of money (which is only a couple weeks disposable income for me) to get the best possible experience then in what what have I lost? Obviously there are lots of other games both past and future that will benefit from such a GPU, hell there's every likelyhood that such a GPU will take me right through the first couple years of next gen console games too. The fact is that the upgrade itself is enjoyable for me and many other PC gamers. It's not just a means to an end, it's a pleasure in itself to build a powerful PC and then see how it fairs on both older and newer games.
So does all this mean I'm missing out on console exclusives? Nope, if I want to play them I'll pick up a console and do so. The only difference is then when it comes to third party cross platform games (of which there are many, many more of interest to me than the handful of good exclusives on each console) then I get to play them in a better format.
And of course graphics aren't the only reason I prefer to game on a PC. There are plenty of other factors like the choice between gamepad or mouse/keyboard control and then there's cost of games - yes the hardware may cost a lot more but the games cost a lot less making purchases on a whim a far more likely prospect on PC than on consoles. I probably buy a little less than 1 game a month with an average saving over the console version of at least £15. That's around £150 saved each year. More than enough over an 8 year console cycle to get several significant hardware upgrades and still come out having spent less money overall. So am I really paying extra to get the better experience in third party games or am I getting it for free?
Then there's things like the choice of being able to game on a montor from close up when I want to get closer to the game world or on a TV from the couch when I feel a bit more like chilling. And the ability to customise the graphical settings in my games allowing me to push my hardware as hard or as lightly as a like and see the results in real time. Or the convenience of having all my games in one place no more than a mouse click away without having to swap out disks to play them or hijack the TV. Hell I can be playing rage within 10 seconds of finishing this post if the mood takes me without having to move an inch - not that I'm usually that lazy
So yeah for some people who are limited on budget and only purchase games infrequently, or who are not overly comfortable with the flexibility and associated complexity of PC's or who just don't really care about lower image quality/framerate and a few dropped graphical settings then PC's won't be the best choice, but for me, it's simply a no brainer. I'll get an xbox 3 when they launch too, and for a while I may even use it as my primary gaming platform. But I'll still have the PC, and I'll still go back to the PC as my main platform a year or two later when I can pick up a cheap GPU that will once again give me all those subtle graphical improvements I like to enjoy alongside the other things I find preferable about PC.
For me, high resolution, high quality AA and a rock solid 60fps with no tearing make a world of difference, and if we're completely honest, it's a big deal to console gamers too, at least going off the discussions you see comparing the tiniest differences between the two major platforms (which really do pale in comparison to the differences you'll see with a PC version). Core graphical improvements are often just the icing on the cake in many cases - although they can make a world of difference to my eyes in a small minority of games. In fact I've actually got Crysis 2 sitting on my shelf upstairs unopened. I could run it at 1080p/60fps at console settings right now if I wanted but I prefer to wait until I've got a DX11 GPU and play it at maximum settings.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that would say the difference between Low and Ultra in Crysis 2 does not justify the purchase of a £250 graphics card and I can't really argue with that, but then, they can't really argue that the experience itself isn't better. And if I'm happy to spend that kind of money (which is only a couple weeks disposable income for me) to get the best possible experience then in what what have I lost? Obviously there are lots of other games both past and future that will benefit from such a GPU, hell there's every likelyhood that such a GPU will take me right through the first couple years of next gen console games too. The fact is that the upgrade itself is enjoyable for me and many other PC gamers. It's not just a means to an end, it's a pleasure in itself to build a powerful PC and then see how it fairs on both older and newer games.
So does all this mean I'm missing out on console exclusives? Nope, if I want to play them I'll pick up a console and do so. The only difference is then when it comes to third party cross platform games (of which there are many, many more of interest to me than the handful of good exclusives on each console) then I get to play them in a better format.
And of course graphics aren't the only reason I prefer to game on a PC. There are plenty of other factors like the choice between gamepad or mouse/keyboard control and then there's cost of games - yes the hardware may cost a lot more but the games cost a lot less making purchases on a whim a far more likely prospect on PC than on consoles. I probably buy a little less than 1 game a month with an average saving over the console version of at least £15. That's around £150 saved each year. More than enough over an 8 year console cycle to get several significant hardware upgrades and still come out having spent less money overall. So am I really paying extra to get the better experience in third party games or am I getting it for free?
Then there's things like the choice of being able to game on a montor from close up when I want to get closer to the game world or on a TV from the couch when I feel a bit more like chilling. And the ability to customise the graphical settings in my games allowing me to push my hardware as hard or as lightly as a like and see the results in real time. Or the convenience of having all my games in one place no more than a mouse click away without having to swap out disks to play them or hijack the TV. Hell I can be playing rage within 10 seconds of finishing this post if the mood takes me without having to move an inch - not that I'm usually that lazy
So yeah for some people who are limited on budget and only purchase games infrequently, or who are not overly comfortable with the flexibility and associated complexity of PC's or who just don't really care about lower image quality/framerate and a few dropped graphical settings then PC's won't be the best choice, but for me, it's simply a no brainer. I'll get an xbox 3 when they launch too, and for a while I may even use it as my primary gaming platform. But I'll still have the PC, and I'll still go back to the PC as my main platform a year or two later when I can pick up a cheap GPU that will once again give me all those subtle graphical improvements I like to enjoy alongside the other things I find preferable about PC.
The problem is that the OP isn't just claiming that there is no difference between PC and console graphics outside of resolution - which one could at least mount a half decent argument to support. He's actually trying to claim that there is little or no real world power difference between high end PC's and consoles and he takes the relative closeness of the graphics to be evidence/proof of that. The reason this is possible, despite the age gap between the two contenders is according the the OP, something to do with the 'advanced, customised hardware" in the consoles.
That this is ridiculous is I'm sure a point we can all agree on.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-trials-evolution-tech-interview
No wonder even high end spreadsheet-gaming PC is left behind by Ferrari Bruce Lee Xbox 360!!
/runs
sebbi (DF article) said:
No wonder even high end spreadsheet-gaming PC is left behind by Ferrari Bruce Lee Xbox 360!!
/runshttp://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-trials-evolution-tech-interview
No wonder even high end spreadsheet-gaming PC is left behind by Ferrari Bruce Lee Xbox 360!!
I stopped reading at FXAA
I'll stick too MSAA+Tr-SSAA
Last edited by a moderator:
no, i know the hardware itself is more powerful thats given due the technology moving. im saying that the power doesnt show in videogames. they still look alike, maybe im dumb when one hardware is ten times more powerful than the other i expect effects and visuals that are no possible on the consoles. but i don't get that. like the person who posted the skyrim mod that dof is something not being done on the console version its a in your face you can obviously tell the difference visual. playing the exact same game graphically at a higher resolution just doesnt impress me.
You're looking at the wrong games matey...
A selection of your quotes:
"I mean other than resoluton why else would console games look just like PC version if consoles were weaker?"
"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."
"So all in all the 360 and ps3 really are near equal to top end PCs,"
"PCs will struggle to run games next generation that consoles will do with ease."
"the consoles are comparable because of their custom hardware and that's why there still isn't after all these years a major difference between this gens consoles and the pc."
"I jsut don't see how the pc is suppose to be so much more powerful but the games look the same minus the resolution"
"with the supposed power difference i expected alot more"
If your intention isn't to suggest you think that consoles offer just as much performance as high end PC's then you probably need to choose your words a little more carefully. As several people have already said, the lack of mind blowing graphics on PC's compared with consoles has nothing to do with power. Its a developer constraint. i.e. the additional sales to be gained from PC sales of the game will not justify the new engine and assets that would be required to properly utilise the power. So instead the PC gets tweaked versions of the console engine and assets which in many cases will look pretty similar. If a developer chose to target a games specifically to the power of todays high end PC's, it would look every bit as good as the games that will be launching on next generation consoles because broadly speaking, they're running roughly the same level of hardware.
They look similar because they use the same game engine and same assets. That doesn't mean they look the same or that the PC versions of some games aren't sporting significant enhancements to the game engine which have a big impact on screen. BF3 you say you've never played on PC so that's a pretty bad starting point to base your argument on. I'm guessing the same it true of Crysis 2 as well since on Ultra quality the differences are very obvious, even over the highest DX9 settings on the PC which themselves are significantly enhanced over consoles. I suggest you read the following for more information around this:
PC Extreme (DX9) settings vs console settings:
http://crytek.com/assets/Crysis-2-Key-Rendering-Features.pdf
PC Ultra settings (DX11) vs PC Extreme settings:
http://www.mycrysis.com/sites/default/files/support/download/c2_dx11_ultra_upgrade.pdf
As for the witcher 2, they've obviously made some different artistic choices with the lighting than many will feel are an improvement. Personanlly in some of the DF comparison shots I think the lighting looks better in the 360 version too. But there are other elements to the games graphics than the new lighting and they pretty much all still look better in the PC version. An obvious example being pictures 81 and 82. I'm sure you can see the obvious difference between them.
Then I suggest you learn a little more about how the industry works and what drives developers.
Is that right? So in your opinion if every game ran at 1080p on the PS3 at a perfect 60fps then there would still be no graphical benefit of having a PS3 over a 360?
Last edited by a moderator:
Solarus Have you actually seen a game running on a top of the range pc ?
I found a screenshot its not the best looking game and its not running at the maximum resolution a top of the range pc can do 7680x3200 but it will give you a little idea
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/056/f/e/dcs_a_10c_by_callsignvega-d3adt3i.jpg
remember to make sure your are fully zoomed out as to see the picture full size
click on the bar to see full size
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I found a screenshot its not the best looking game and its not running at the maximum resolution a top of the range pc can do 7680x3200 but it will give you a little idea
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/056/f/e/dcs_a_10c_by_callsignvega-d3adt3i.jpg
remember to make sure your are fully zoomed out as to see the picture full size
click on the bar to see full size
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
TheWretched
Regular
Here's a comparison between BF3 360 and PC on "max ultra settings"... if you can't see the difference, then I am sorry...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAVy6A3cbX8
Basically every pixel is different. It's nothing huge (obviously), but it's VERY noticable. And that's even at comparable (because massively compressed) resolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAVy6A3cbX8
Basically every pixel is different. It's nothing huge (obviously), but it's VERY noticable. And that's even at comparable (because massively compressed) resolution.
What's entertaining to me about threads like this, that turn into "PCs are the bestest graphics!", is that there have been quite a few console games from companies that don't bother with PC that have been artistically mind blowing. And that apparently some people still play Crysis 1 enough to believe it's a worthwhile subject to use for persuasion. Oh and I saw Far Cry 2, bane of fun, used too.
Also, what's with the 1000 word persuasive essays? Why do some of you have to push your angle so hard?
Also, what's with the 1000 word persuasive essays? Why do some of you have to push your angle so hard?
This thread is all wrong, still people are not comparing PC exclusives vs Console exclusives..
Its Console vs PC playing console port..
You compare any game that's built from the ground on PC from the last few years and the difference is very apparent.
Problem being is that games built for PC are few and far between these days.
I know it's Crysis again and I people will point out the sharp rock edge joining the texture but the sheer detail and pure depth in the ground texture is unreal, there no visible repeating ( at least to my eyes ) and you can see so many little tiny rocks...
That really impresses me.... I've seen consoles do some impressive things in regards to textures but I've never seen them to any thing like that and Crysis when it's all said and done is a 2007 game.
Its Console vs PC playing console port..
You compare any game that's built from the ground on PC from the last few years and the difference is very apparent.
Problem being is that games built for PC are few and far between these days.
I know it's Crysis again and I people will point out the sharp rock edge joining the texture but the sheer detail and pure depth in the ground texture is unreal, there no visible repeating ( at least to my eyes ) and you can see so many little tiny rocks...
That really impresses me.... I've seen consoles do some impressive things in regards to textures but I've never seen them to any thing like that and Crysis when it's all said and done is a 2007 game.
Last edited by a moderator:
You can lead [strike]Solarus[/strike] a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Closed for the sheer stupidity in this thread.
Closed for the sheer stupidity in this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
