Tachikoma said:
Turkish said:
Tachikoma said:
Turkish said:
Yes I do expect to be blown away by the PS4. I have a beast rig:
-GTX670
-i5 3570K
-16GB ram
-watercooled
I run everything at 2560x1440 like BF3 on Ultra, I get around 45fps average.
Eventough I have such a great pc, I'm still amazed when I play ps3 exclusives like Uncharted 3 and God of War.
Nextgen won't just bring more polygons and higher resolutions, the increase in image quality will be tremendous.
I really ROLF everytime pc gamers say "dont expect much of nextgen because we already have high resolutions and whatnots", yeah as if your 2004 pc game looked any better than Uncharted 3.
|
Firstly, 360 and PS3 hadn't even released in 2004, neither had the GPU equivolent to the one used in the 360 OR the PS3, Secondly UC3 released in late 2011, and the PS3 released in 2006 - So i will later compare the 2011 game you point to, to 2006 pc games, but lets play by your standards for a second,
PC games in 2004?
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/9461/doom3b.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-q17NDOpzlGc/UL-CQG_9FuI/AAAAAAAABac/l63wCwbTdeo/s1600/farcry3+PC_d3d11+2012-12-05+19-01-44-90.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/2myt820.jpg
PC games in 2006?
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100328132210/half-life/en/images/9/9b/LostCoast.jpg
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/erikkain/files/2012/05/half-life-21.jpg
http://techgage.com/articles/graphic_cards/settings/oct_2008/half_life_2_episode_two.jpg
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Oblivion-screenshots-pc-gamer-468662_1024_819.jpg
http://chorrol.com/files/57/obliv19B.jpg
You seem to forget, too that over the years graphical engines are created, perfected, etc, too, Proof of this and how it relates would basically be a case of, Pick any multiplatform game you want and tell me if the console version looks as nice as PC version, because if you try you're only fooling yourself.
So basically you're saying "look at a game made 5 years after the console was made" to prove to me that the new consoles are going to look at good as pc games currently do - when clearly it took developers 5 years to harness the power enough to make UC3 possible - Even uncharted 1 wasn't a launch title - so why you expect the launch titles on the PS4 and 720 to be magically awesome from the get-go, i just don't know.
PC gamers are always on the forefront of graphical technology - the hardware itself is more than capable of running games that outshine the console counterparts - the only difference is over the yeas console developers learn to develop within the limits of the machine, where pushing the sub-720p resolutions and sub 30fps framerates to the limits is the norm - where pc's dont suffer from such limitations so developers don't often push hard - but when they do the games look miles better than console versions (just like developers do with console exclusives).
Either way, you must be pretty new to PC gaming or simply pulling stats out of your backside if you honestly think the next round of consoles are somehow - magically, from the get go, going to do more with the same hardware of low end student PC's than can be done with high end gaming specific gear.
As for Newgroundsguru,
"PCs are for the internet and photoshop. Why pump money into a computer for gaming? With all the hacks and mods the games always feel like bastardised versions anyway. Not to mention that i would rather play my games on the couch with my 47" 1080p Flat screen then in a office chair on a 17" moniter.. But thats just my opinion :3"
That would be because, and has been proven by many, many websites, you can make a perfectly viable gaming system for roughly the same price of a games console, and get much better performance from the PC in the same games, the hacks and mods are option, and frankly at this point in your post you begin to sound like a troll.
You complain about pumping money into a gaming computer, then sit a few meters away from a $600+ 1920x1080 47" monitor which fills more or less the same amount of viewspace as sitting on front of "a 17" monitor" which - would cost sub $100 and have the same resolution - or you could go with a $250 monitor (still less than half the price of your tv) running 1920x200 or higher at 27" and actually fill more viewspace than sitting in front of a TV - and last but not least - if sitting on your ass in front of a tv is such a big draw for you, consider that most games for the past few years have shipped with default configurations for xbox 360 wired and wireless controllers, run a 5m hdmi cable from pc to tv, or a 20m vga/dvi from pc to tv, and use a wireless 360 pad and get the same experience as your console, on your 1080p screen - with games that are actually running at 1080p and not being upscaled from sub-720p.
|
Huh, Far Cry 3 was made in 2004? That Half Life shot doesn't look as good as Gears of War, neither does that pic of Oblivion look better than Fable 2. Nextgen games will look better than anything available on current pcs. You can run Oblivion in 8K for all I care, but IQ wise it won't compare to a ps360 exclusive unless you use graphics mods.
In your OP you tell us not to expect much from the nextgen because pc games are already in high resolution today, you forgot to mention the incremental rise of IQ. It wont be just 1080@60fps as you seem to think. If a PS3 with 256MB vram and a 7 year old gpu can still pump out amazing games like Uncharted 3, imagine what a PS4 with a rumored 7970M and 4GB GDDR5 ram will do. Try playing BF3 with 256MB ram on your pc lol.
PC games are dependent on development on consoles. If we still played on our PS2s today, pc multiplat games would never look as they're now, devs would never bother developing new engines to accomodate pcs.
Very few games that push graphical fidelity are made exclusive for pc, the rest are either indie games or games like Minecraft.
|
Gears of War was released on PC a year later - and could have been released along side the 360 version had Microsoft and Epic games no wanted to use it as an exclusive to push units and sell hardware (the game inidentally looks a hell of a lot better taking advantage of the higher resolution, better anti aliasing and better texture filtering, The same is also true for Fable (which again released a year later to give the 360 more exclusives), so your point on both games is rather moot - since the pc version of both is superior.
Again you're still saying compare a 2006 game (gears) to a 2004 pc game, As a developer i can tell you that if you compare software of different generations there will always be a jump in graphical quality.
PlayStation 3 only has 256mb of vram but that's only a limitation if you're using only the RSX for video processing - you forget (conveniently), that the system also has another 256mb of ram and a CellBBE processor which was initialy designed to process graphics as well - and does so in many later generation PlayStation 3 games, giving the engine 400-500mb of ram for graphics processing which is very similar to the Xbox360, since both systems reserve some memory for other functions and feaures.
So comparing it to a 2006 pc with a 512mb card is most suitable since the PC card also loses ram to driver and system overheads. - Taking those overheads into account grab yourself a 7950GX2 and run Battlefield 3 at 1280x704 (same as console versions) on medium settings for everything (same as console versions) and you'll find it runs it just as well as the consoles do.
IQ is hardware capability related but also tied to experience with new technologies - not a single game you have pointed to was a launch title for a console, and yet you say "compare it to a 2004 game", (a year before even the xbox released), compare any of the screenshots i posted (barring the fc3 one since im on a phone and searching for fa cry 1 for some reason showed that), and you'll see graphics comparable to console launch titles - compare games of the same year to console counterparts and theyre just as good, but with the benefit of anti aliasing, higher framerates and higher resolutions.
Ultimately, the hardware is new to console developers, but it's not capable of anything that isn't already possible on PC's, the image quality jump will only happen once developers push the hardware - by which time the same image quality jump will be present on PC's - and in many cases the jumps already there, developers just need to cut it down and make it fit with consoles - UE4 is a perfect example of this.
I don't doubt that eventually, 720 and ps4 games will look much better than current pc titles do (even on high end pc's of today), but that isnt going to be at launch - it'll be a 10 months to few years later, by which time newer pc software will look just as good, again benefitting from the additional 'polish'offered by hardware with more grunt.
But hey, i only spent the past 3 months working with the "orbis" devkit on a title for my now ex employer, so what would i know about the graphical quality of launch titles.
|
