The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[almighty]

Uncharted and Killzone series, Mass Effect series, later Gears games, Halo 4, Journey, Rage... Far better art direction and very high quality assets in all of them.

And yet all of the above are horribly inconsistent with said assests.

You can have amazing looking assests in one place and ones that look like complete right next to them.

Crysis while having rough spots is infinately better then any console game in that regard.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PCs have always had better visuals, if not immidiately after a new console launch, then very shortly after.

Whatever hardware PC had, it wasn't providing the same game experience because it wasn't getting the support. It didn't have anything to rival GT3 in visuals, for example. GT3 was a jaw-dropping experience that really highlighted a new generation of hardware. A personal experience of mine was BG: DA. This game looked fabulous, and the similar style titles on PC (NWN, Dungeon Siege) weren't anything like as pretty or smooth. Even years after with Ti4800, a lot of games weren't getting the same quality visuals as PS2.

So even if PCs had more powerful hardware once graphics moved off custom hardware (PC was never able to compete with hardware sprites in the 2D era), it's not until this gen really that the software has been there to make the most of it. Now it is there, and there's no point where buying a console will give you the bestest gaming hardware (other than alternative gaming experiences like Kinect ,Wii, etc. that the PC doesn't get).

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I give up.

 

[pjbliverpool]

In fall 2005 there was simply not a single PC game thats running as high quality assets as gears of war or call of duty 2 (xbox360), whatever PC you bought at that time you wont get the same quality graphics.

Call of Duty 2 was on the PC, it launched at or very near the same time as the 360 version and looked identical save for the higher resolution from what I recall.

There's certainly an argument to be made for Gears but Company of Heroes while being a completely different genre could be argued just as impressive.

another example is gran turismo 5 prologue in 2007, you can buy at that time any PC you want even at 10.000 $ even a PC that is 10 times more powerful than ps3, but you cant run a PC racing game at the same quality assets.

I'd disagree on that. NFS Most Wanted 2012 looks at least as good IMO. Not that either of us can make an objective statement on any of this but it's certainly not as clear cut as you're making out, i.e. GT5 is unarguably without graphical competition from any PC racing game.

you do realize that PS1 has been released in decembeer 1994 ? (If I am not mistaken no GPU for PCs existed at that time, GPUs started commercialization for PCs in late 1995 at the earliest or debut 1996, correct me if I am wrong) I dont consider 1996 as "shortly after".

I don't recall the year but I was using a powerVR card before the Voodoo 1 released if memory serves which offered far better graphics than anything the PS1 could push out. I remember Tomb Raider being pretty mind blowing for the day on that card.

same remark regarding release dates of PS2 (march 2000) or Xbox (november 2001), No metal gear solid 2 graphics or Halo1 graphics for PC in that period of timee...

Depends whether you're talking hardware capability or graphical goodness. Hardware wise the PC moved ahead with the launch of the GF2 and GF4 series respectively. Graphics wise I wasn't a serious gamer in the GF2 era so can't comment there but I disagree with your example of Halo. While an amazing game and great looking for it's day, it was easilt matched or exceeded by Return to Castle Wolfenstein IMO.

and you forget to mentiuon dreamcast (1998) you dont have virtua tennis, sonic, or soul calibur level graphics on any PC....

I remember my Dreamcast owning friend being pretty jealous of Quake 3 running on my old GF2 MX back in the day. To be fair though I also remember being pretty impressed with his Sonic Adventure (which I later got on the PC).

None of this matters for the upcoming generation though, the rules have changed greatly, even since the most recent generation.

1. The PC exclusive market is near dead so we are unlikely to see AAA PC exclusives like Crysis again as you say
2. Games development is more expensive these days so hitting as many platforms as possible makes business sense, thus making cross platform ports to PC more likely than ever (something weve seen a large increase in this generation IMO)
3. Next gen consoles using x86 CPU's and most likely DX11 based GPU's from AMD should make PC ports easier than ever, further supporting point 2
4. Next gen consoles will likely target 1080p which is also the standard PC gaming resolution these days. That means an end to the situation where consoles can do more with lesser or the same hardware by targetting the same visuals at a lower resolution
5. DX11 is a much more efficient API than DX9 which was the standard last gen, thus reducing the API performance penalty the PC suffered this gen
6. Next generation consoles are expected to be significantly weaker than previous generations in relation to the strongest PC's available of the day

Who knows how all these factors will come together to play out? I certainly think there is more potential there than last gen for the PC to be getting many 3rd party next gen console ports at full or higher than full quality on day 1.

Gubbi also makes a very interesting point and it's yet to be seen how that will effect things. Thanks to decent integrated GPU's the baseline PC performance will now be much higher and much less spread out than it once was. On the other hand a higher proportion of PC's are likely to have this baseline level of performance than at the start of the current generation so development may be easier but developers may be more tempted to focus on the lower performance segments and pay less or no attention to the high performance segments.

I think the best we can hope for is that baseline PC performance is high enough that the vast majority of console games can be ported over to PC with the option to scale things down enough to enable them to run on intergrated GPU's but can continue to keep the settings at the console maximum or higher for faster PC's. I don't think that's outside the realms of possibility since even a baseline PC should offer more RAM, a faster CPU and a similar graphics feateset to the new console even if the GPU grunt is lower. Thus devs may only need to focus on scaling back easy things like draw distance, screen/texture/effects resolution, framerate etc... to get those games running on baseline PC's.

Not that any of this matters to me. I'll be getting the new xbox on day 1 for Kinect and other 'social' games. As far as hardcore / AAA / action games go, 3D is where it's at as far as I'm concerned and I don't see next gen consoles coming close to challenging the PC's dominance in that field.

 

[DoctorFouad]

Whatever hardware PC had, it wasn't providing the same game experience because it wasn't getting the support. It didn't have anything to rival GT3 in visuals, for example. GT3 was a jaw-dropping experience that really highlighted a new generation of hardware. A personal experience of mine was BG: DA. This game looked fabulous, and the similar style titles on PC (NWN, Dungeon Siege) weren't anything like as pretty or smooth. Even years after with Ti4800, a lot of games weren't getting the same quality visuals as PS2.

So even if PCs had more powerful hardware once graphics moved off custom hardware (PC was never able to compete with hardware sprites in the 2D era), it's not until this gen really that the software has been there to make the most of it. Now it is there, and there's no point where buying a console will give you the bestest gaming hardware (other than alternative gaming experiences like Kinect ,Wii, etc. that the PC doesn't get).

you forget exclusive games, when ps4 get released 2013-2014, I am pretty sure any naughty dog, polyphony digital, santa monica or guerilla games, game would be more impressive graphically than anything PCs could offer.

gears of war was a great example for xbox360.

 

[pjbliverpool]

you forget exclusive games, when ps4 get released 2013-2014, I am pretty sure any naughty dog, polyphony digital, santa monica or guerilla games, game would be more impressive graphically than anything PCs could offer.

gears of war was a great example for xbox360.

Why? What makes you think any of those games will be more graphically impressive than say Assassins Creed 4, Call of Duty 6, Bioshock 4, Crysis 4, Battlefield 4, Rage 2 etc...

All of these multiplatfrom games can easily hold their own against the best console exclusives available today and all should be available on PC's.

Console exclusives being more graphically impressive than multiplatform games is a myth IMO. Multiplatform games can hit a bigger audience thus allowing more to be spent on development and even last gen could focus on each consoles specific architecture pretty efficiently. Imagine how much better the situation will be next generation when all systems are running similar x86 based CPU's and AMD DX11 generation GPU's. Multiplatform games should be able to go even further than they have this generation in eeking out the most of each system.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Tomb Raider 1 came out in very late 1996. It was bundled with a lot of the 3dfx cards, maybe the Orchid ones?

 

[3dilettante]

It may be worthwhile taking a look at how exclusive and multiplatform titles looked over time.
It may be a myth that exclusives will permanently maintain a lead, but would be unreasonable to think there are advantages in the early going?

An exclusive earlier in the generation could grab more of the low-hanging fruit, especially if the platforms are dissimilar. Once the exclusives gain most of the improvement there is to have, they would enter the range of diminishing returns and the multiplatforms could begin to close the gap as they improve over time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

you forget exclusive games, when ps4 get released 2013-2014, I am pretty sure any naughty dog, polyphony digital, santa monica or guerilla games, game would be more impressive graphically than anything PCs could offer.

You're falling back on subjective comparisons here. Whatever games Sony releases, they have their alternatives among cross-platform games. The only reason GT6 may still be the best looking racer in the world (which some will argue) is the subjective artistry and style of PD, and nothing to do with their magical powers in making hardware perform beyond its limitations. Guerilla isn't all that - it just made excellent use of the limited PS3 hardware, but Battlefield 3 on PC completely whips Killzone's ass and that's how it'll be next gen. PCs aren't getting only 25% utilisation such that a £300 console can be comparable to a £1000 PC. The days of consoles being something special are over. It's not going to happen, and anyone who holds up console platform exclusives with their 720p30 visuals as indicative of console superiority over 1920x1200 and larger 60fps high IQ is just being defensively nostalgic.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

You're starting to get too far into technical parameters too, Shifty.

Battlefield does have a relatively unique style and works well within that, but its characters are still nowhere near even Uncharted 2 IMHO, not to mention Last of Us or Halo 4 or Beyond. And CG characters are in particular a field where it's more important to be 'convincing' then to have high texture and video resolutions or properly measured SSS values. Or just think about animation and how important it actually is, yet it can't really be measured in any meaningful way at all.

Again, most gamers won't be able to tell these technical differences, but they'll probably still have opinions about which game looks better. Don't let the in-depth hw/sw knowledge cloud your judgment.

 

[DoctorFouad]

Why? What makes you think any of those games will be more graphically impressive than say Assassins Creed 4, Call of Duty 6, Bioshock 4, Crysis 4, Battlefield 4, Rage 2 etc...

All of these multiplatfrom games can easily hold their own against the best console exclusives available today and all should be available on PC's.

Console exclusives being more graphically impressive than multiplatform games is a myth IMO.

I have 2 answers :

1- (the very common answer to your question) : "specialization", console exclusive games developers target only ONE platform, thus if they want and have the resources and talent to do so, they are capable of squeezing every bit of performance from this console more so than any multiplatform developer can ever dream of (uncharted2 at its time is the best example, but also the last of us, gran turismo 5, killzone2, Halo4, Forza4...). They can also find new innovative more efficient ways to use the console hardware, even multiplatform developers of course can do that but less so, but the biggest advantage is that exclusive game developers can choose artistic assets, gameplay ideas to suit the hardware they are playing with, unlike multiplatform developers which can only dream of a balance between different platforms with inveitable compromises.

2- "earlier and exclusive access to development kits" and their new versions, exclusive game developers know in advance which hardware they will target, naughty dog started brainstorming and developing for ps4 way ahead of any other multiplatform developer, they have priviliged and earlier access to development kits, they may even be part of the software team developing tools for ps4. All of this gives them an advantage especially for early exclsuive games for the console...of course multiplatform developers can catch up, but it will take time.

Thats why I do believe that anything naughty dog (or guerilla games or santa monica) would release for ps4 in 2013-2014 would inevitably be more technically impressive than any other multiplatform game running on ps4 and released at the same time window.

Now the question : would it also be more advanced than anything existing on PC ? of course that would depend on how much the ps4 is underpowered compared to PCs of 2013-2014, but I am inclined to believe and to bet YES they could achieve this, unless another anomaly a la crysis surprises everyone...

You're falling back on subjective comparisons here. Whatever games Sony releases, they have their alternatives among cross-platform games. The only reason GT6 may still be the best looking racer in the world (which some will argue) is the subjective artistry and style of PD, and nothing to do with their magical powers in making hardware perform beyond its limitations. Guerilla isn't all that - it just made excellent use of the limited PS3 hardware, but Battlefield 3 on PC completely whips Killzone's ass and that's how it'll be next gen. PCs aren't getting only 25% utilisation such that a £300 console can be comparable to a £1000 PC. The days of consoles being something special are over. It's not going to happen, and anyone who holds up console platform exclusives with their 720p30 visuals as indicative of console superiority over 1920x1200 and larger 60fps high IQ is just being defensively nostalgic.

I didnt say that. I didnt even say that GT5 (2010) is still the best looking racing game. I was talking about GT5 prologue released in 2007, and YES in 2007 GT5 prologue was the most technically advanced racer for its time, and NO thats not subjective (higher resolution, 60fps, high rez textures, high poly models, impressive lighting engine...). Same goes for Gears of War, NOTHING for PC was technically as impressive (high rez textures, displacement mapping, self shadowing, per pixel motion blur and a lot of fancy shaders all over the place...).

 

[almighty]

Another example is gran turismo 5 prologue in 2007, you can buy at that time any PC you want even at 10.000 $ even a PC that is 10 times more powerful than ps3, but you cant run a PC racing game at the same quality assets.

That's more because no one really bothers with true simulation games on PC and not because the hardware was not capable.

And prologue looked like ass, texture quality was poor, image quality was equally as bad and the lighting was bland.

I wasn't very impressed by it when I saw it at all and I'm a massive GT fan...

It was and is nothing more then a high resolution GT4

 

[Gubbi]

you do realize that PS1 has been released in decembeer 1994 ? (If I am not mistaken no GPU for PCs existed at that time, GPUs started commercialization for PCs in late 1995 at the earliest or debut 1996, correct me if I am wrong) I dont consider 1996 as "shortly after".

September 1995 if you lived outside of Japan.

And there was nothing on consoles that came even close to Quake + Voodoo graphics in 1996.

same remark regarding release dates of PS2 (march 2000) or Xbox (november 2001), No metal gear solid 2 graphics or Halo1 graphics for PC in that period of timee...

High quality titles, but because of the graphics hardware? MGS2's credit to fame was the high quality animation (and production in genera). Halo 1 was a landmark titles for pixel shaders but you could get a Geforce 3 at the same time as XBOX launched and a Geforce 4 very soon after and tons of games started taking advantage.

Cheers

 

[ERP]

The issue with PC games in the mid to late 90's was that publishers still required you support a software renderer, I remember talking to publishers about PC versions of some of our console titles at the time.

And yes when Voodoo 1 shipped at the end of 1996 there wasn't anything in a console that could come close performance wise.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I think the Voodoo1 did 40 million textured pixels per second? With 2MB frame buffer memory and 2MB texture memory...

Those were the times

 

[tuna]

And there was nothing on consoles that came even close to Quake + Voodoo graphics in 1996.

And there was nothing on the PC coming close to VF3/Scud Race. They made a decent port of Quake for the Saturn, it was not that special.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I didnt say that. I didnt even say that GT5 (2010) is still the best looking racing game. I was talking about GT5 prologue released in 2007, and YES in 2007 GT5 prologue was the most technically advanced racer for its time...

You're losing track of the thread of discussion. I was talking to Gubbi about best hardware, challenging his opinion with an agreement to yours for console history that consoles had the advantage but no longer do (quote: "there's no point where buying a console will give you the bestest gaming hardware"). To which you replied with a platform exclusive. GT5 was only the best graphics in 2007 because no-one had invested the effort to make a better game on PC. I've already said some genres like racers will probably have their strongest visuals on console still, because of the market. But for everything else, the exclusive software isn't going to make the games technically better. There will be plenty of exclusives that will be argued about as being better looking than PC games, and we'll have countless screenshots and illogical arguments on this forum as apples are compared to oranges are compared to ten packs of tissues and size 8 training shoes. However, unlike previous console generations where the PC games were lagging behind, we will now have the same games on PC from day 1. On better hardware, looking better. We'll have x86 and AMD GPU in both consoles by accounts, and bugger x86 and GPUs in PCs. It's a no brainer that consoles will not have an edge. There'll be some games with better tailored use of the hardware, or that hit a particular aesthetic that gets some people excited and saying, "nothing's ever looked this good before!" (eg. maybe Beyond:Two Souls will set a new benchmark for realistic animation), but it won't be due to technical features of the hardware.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I somehow doubt that the Saturn port of Quake was running at 640*480 at 25fps, with bilinear filtering and such features.

Probably didn't even look as good as Quake PC in software rendering mode on a Pentium II.

 

[Squilliam]

Whether consoles have an immediate advantage over PCs will probably depend on whether or not they have a very wide memory bus with stacked memory with a low latency connection between the CPU and GPU. PCs don't have a lot of memory bandwidth to the main CPU and there is a lot of latency between the CPU and GPU and in gaming PCs you cannot expect an APU configuration. It isn't a question of outright throughput or technology but whether or not there is a significant difference which can be exploited on consoles that doesn't exist on PCs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That is true and something I overlooked. If the memory system is something special, next-gen consoles may have a trick they can wield to their benefit, although I wonder how much real value CPU<>GPU interconnect is going to be?