John2290 said:
Talking whole package here. Everything from the perfectly toned colour to the AA, the lighting, the art, the balance between the micro and the macro, right to the littlest of details like the rain moving in sheets across the enviroment with the gusts of wind or the dust particles hanging in the air and swirling as charecters move through the space or the leaves falling or the blood in characters ears when light shines through them. Just the whole package compared to any other game including animations, art, sound and everything else. I'm not talking numbers here. You do uncerstand what I mean, right? I fear PC gamers become jaded to actual visuals and obsess over the numbers. You can crank up what ever setting you want on PC, it doesn't mean the graphics as a whole will be good. |
It's an instance of not being able to see the forest from the trees. The natural tendency for PC platformers is to look specifically at the numbers that can be run on a given hardware set up as opposed to the game in question itself.
I practically used PC games as benchmark programs to adjust settings and tweak hardware performance myself, so this is something I speak of from near OCD level experience.
We have more or less hit a point where it's really up to the skill of a development team as well as the amount of time/budget/resources they have allocated to their project as opposed to simply just the hardware on which it is to run to determine who can produce the best results.
Would UC4 run better on an optimized PC rig? That's not even a question open to debate. But, it's also not the question being addressed.
There is a very tiny number of current game developers on par with Naughty Dog in terms of the ability to produce quality/the whole package. It just so happens that they only publish on Playstation platforms.
