Saw this posted over on Gaf.

Samaritan's return was the only taste of the next-gen we'd be getting at this briefing, but Mark Rein made it obvious that this was the visual target for the new wave of consoles and there was a brief implication that the mystery NVIDIA Kepler card's performance would be matched by whatever the console platform holders are working on now. Rein himself would know: sources close to Epic have told us that the company is working on next-gen target hardware from Microsoft right now - one source has even gone so far as to say to us that Samaritan is already running on whatever kit is currently being used to simulate the new Xbox..

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...gine-evolution

Good! Now hurry up and let me buy something which will look this good!

Great news! I'd like to see some specs though

Link is broken.....
Went to the site too and don't see this article anywhere.

On topic: I'm not surprised. It's not like Epic was making this for PC-only....

It surely can't be running at the same quality as the PC demo, or the Nextbox would be more expensive than a PS3 was at launch.

Still, nice to see that the next gen of consoles might be able handle something approaching PC quality tech.

Running Samaritan on an HD 6670 is an impressive feat, but I think if anything it will only illustrate the growing gap in visuals and performance between consoles and dedicated gaming PCs that will likely increase a lot faster in the 8th gen than in the 7th.

There's still room for surprises with the Xbox 3, but based on alleged specs alone, it does seem more like a piece of hardware that was designed to stay current for 4-5 years rather than the 7-8 the Xbox 360 is currently coasting with.

Well PC graphics are held back by console. Most games are now developed on console as the lead platform.(This includes the fastest selling title in Steam history, Skyrim)

@bold
Yeah, sadly. Doubt we will ever see such a long generation like this one ever again.

That has to be one of the most common statements from PC gamers, but it's not really true. If the argument was more of a "games that would have been published for PC were instead only made available on consoles with modest specs" it might have a leg to stand on, but most of the really big titles with the appropriate really big budgets are still being published on PC, barring the handful that are "bought" by platform manufacturers to keep exclusive on their platform. 

Case in point: Alan Wake. Looked good on Xbox, but obviously could have been made to look better on PC while running smoother. Didn't see a PC port so game was arguably hobbled by the one platform it was available on. PC version of the game finally followed (late) and now the game can be played the way some would have preferred to have played it at full res, smoother framerates and additional effects. 

I really don't think Skyrim was "held back" by the fact that it was developed to run on consoles; all the mods and additional visuals available for the PC version (without even mentioning how much better it performs on high end PCs) make a pretty clear statement as to which platform provides the best technical/visual experience. 

And it's been like that for almost every multi-platform game since the 7th gen started. Better resolution, better visual effects, better performance on the appropriately configured PC.

Are people suggesting that if no R&D went into porting game engine code into console games, then these same games would somehow would have had even more money put into PC only developed games? Because I don't think so. I think it would just mean PC developers would spend less on development by not having to spend on the additional resources to specify code for consoles at the loss of any revenue that would have been made by also making their games available on consoles and an overall broader market. Spend more sell more or spend less sell less. This is why publishers go for multiple platforms. 

Point being, game resources are almost universally scaled down to accomodate the lower RAM/VRAM available on consoles, meaning textures were orginally done at higher resolutions, models were sculpted with far greater poly counts (even on PC, these are scaled down from the original whether from 3DS Max, Mudbox, Maya, Z-brush, etc.) before being scaled down to run on console. Or run on PCs with lower specs (the majority). If developers only designed their games to run on $2,000 builds, they'd be out of business. 

IMO skyrim was held back by consoles. Yes, put all the graphics settings to its highest on a high end pc and you get much better visuals than the console version. However, compare skyrim to other high end pc games, and it falls short. I was underwhelmed by Skyrims highest settings on pc to say the least. If you compare skyrim to a game like the witcher 2, which also to a certain extent had consoles in mind, but by no means was it the primary focus. The witcher 2 has amazing visuals, and i would say that because the PC was the "lead platform" the developers wernt limited by consoles.

The thing is, its not only about graphical fidelity but other aspects of game development as well. For example a game like Crysis 2, which imo went for a certain game design that is much more suited for consoles....i would go even further than that and say that the setting of the game was also developed with consoles as a primary focus. Battlefield 3 is another example where game design was affected.

This is why certain people say pc graphics are held back by consoles, personally i would say game design as a whole is held back or affected in some way by consoles being the lead platform as well as the lowest common denominator.

Bethesda has never been known as the leader in visuals for any of their games, even when they were a PC developer first, console port developer second. So to suggest that if they focused on PC first that their games would be selling high end VGA cards in mass quantities is really an exaggeration and giving Bethesda more credit than they're due.

Crysis 2 is about the ONLY game that comes to mind considering that CryEngine 3 was specifically developed with consoles in mind. 

Battlefield 3, no. The difference between the PC and console versions made it pretty clear that if you wanted the definitive version, you would be playing it on PC and you would likely be upgrading your VGA card set up as well.

And the lowest common denominator on PC will always be "minimum specs" which often play and look worse than console ports.