Steam has a ton of crappy indy games. The AAA titles are few and very poor. PLaying SNES style games on a DX11 gpu is getting shafted.

What game has maxed out a PC over the last 7 years? Yup - I think you need to do you homework on this one as again, the PC got shafted due to being capped at console level.

They didn;t have a problem maxing them out prior to the ps3/360 era did they *rollseyes* Look at Crysis, Doom 3, Far Cry. No problem there so why all of a sudden did it change? Oh right - makers baised towards the consoles that time around and everythign went multiplatform.

HAHAHAHA, and the proof you know nothing. Sorry, size is critical to everything. Better graphics NEEDS more size (hd textures etc). You can only compress to a certain level, which they reached at the very start of the 360.

Holy crap. I really hope you're not serious at the moment, its making my head spin, you're making it too obvious right now, you can't be serious.

There is no developer on Earth that will completely utilize the PC architecture. Crisis, and perhaps Star Citizen being the exception, and I don't believe Crisis sold to well on PC anyways.

If they make a game so powerful they'll be excluding a large amount of potential buyers because their PC don't meet the minimum specs. There is no profit in it. This is why there is no Half Life 3.

-_-

Why? Why is any of that hard to accept. And I say accept over believe because just do the numbers/study the field and you will then agree with me.

Every developer utilizes PC architecture how else do they make games? ,  especially now because PS4 and Xbox One are both the same architecture as a PC, it makes developing of games using C++ coding a lot easier, hence why there is a lot of indie games released, its a lot easier to make games on PS4 than on PS3.

Crysis (not Crisis by the way) is really a bad example, the developer should just stick to making Cry engine instead of games, sure you can say the first game was good, thats because the people who made it made Time Splitter.

my whole thread is about not focusing on graphics and more so on making the games run perfectly, thats what developers should be going for not make ultra realistic crap games, PC games are never about graphics and always about making the games run "the way they're meant to be played". 

What I said was they will never COMPLETELY utilize the architecture.

Agree with what? something that isn't not common sense? 

a game's size doesn't equal it being better or worse. today's graphic engines are all about being less resource heavy and more functional, polygons get smaller and smaller every year, and especially now that we're seeing changes in game texturing  in that we're using Voxel graphics instead of Polygons, Voxels are way different than Polygons in that they are less resource heavy and are more "Smoother" as they're not squares they're little dots of balls, you will not need much GPU power or file memory, instead you'll need CPU power,  you can see this being used in games nowadays actually for example Everquest next, this technology will only get better with time.

 it can improve a lot of things in games such as fully destructable environment

a game's size depends on if the game was compiled the right way in an SDK (any) and C++ coder and then thrown into a graphic engine that isn't resource heavy such as the old Crytek engine, the whole thing is like lego , you build then animate and then code it on C++ so it actually functions in an order (such as opening scene and different levels), graphic programs such as ZBrush use voxels nowadays iinstead of polygons and they're really good, they make games looks really nice God Of war Ascension used this which is why it was able to run on an old tech yet look good.

he mentions it at 3:20 minutes in this video.

after sculpting a model you go into something called SDK or Graphic engine, where you place this model into the game world, old graphic engines were very resource heavy and demanded a lot of memory, but nowadays thanks to mobile gaming developers are forced to optimize their graphic engines so that so they require less resources and now engines such as Unity are very good at doing this, its also very good at being multiplatform engine so if you say want to make a PC game and port to a tablet for example you don't have to build it from the ground up, you just port it,  these resource friendly engines are currently beating the old sloggy graphics engines so companies who own those are forced to make better engines such as Unreal Engine and CryEngine, so with time Memory will be smaller and smaller yet the games will look better and better.

Now that covers Texturing and animations correct? what about motion capture animation? developers now find it easier to make motion capture than to animate every single texture in every cutscene, what does that mean? currect it means less memory usage and smaller game files, i can go on forever but consider this , how big is Killzone 2's game file is? about 40 GB, how big is Metro Last Light is ? (i own it) and its barely 8 gigabytes , which game looks better? Metro of course, how can that be? its because Killzone 2 is uncompressed as fuck and was made with terrible coding and compiling, it looked good at it's time but it isn't really good compared to Metro or even Bioshock Inifinite (which is 12 gb) or Tomb Raider (which is probably 4 gb) , you know why? because they all used better SDKs and better graphic technologies 

which is why Killzone Shadow Fall was slightly SMALLER than Killzone 2 and even Call OF Duty Ghosts (which looks like complete shit) was 50 gigs on PC so size doesn't matter  , why was Shadow Fall smaller than KZ2 ? because KZ2 used old polygon technology and KZ Shadow fall uses new ones to make textures, they didn't use voxels but if they did it would be around 6 gb, and if you add the CGI cutscenes and the UNCOMPRESSED LOSSLESS music and sound effects and voice acting it will be around 10 GB, no its not magic, its just basic graphic design

you can't "Cap a PC 100%" because every PC is different. but they can utilize it beyond console limitations they already do this, however... read the post below i explained why making a game run better is more important than it looking realistic, and thats what next gen consoles are doing at the moment we don't need slow frame rates and crappy ports like PS3 / Xbox 360 did, we need better RUNNING games than LOOKING games which is thanks to mobile gaming developers are more focusing on doing at the moment. 

PC games will always run better of course, but that doesn't mean it is "capped" thats impossible. you can't drink a growing ocean but you can drink a cup of water.

You don't understand how games are made too well.  They have not fully utilised PCs for years. As I have mentioned, look at DX 11 and how games were capped to crappy dx9 for years. That is getting shafted son; shafted mighty hard.

Also you never make a AAA game using just a high level language. That would be insane. You normally buy an engine and work from there.

But few games have maxed out the CryEngine since. Look at what CryEngine3 can do....and look at how many games DON'T use any of those features. The oinly game that will is a PC exclusive.

Graphics cards are so damn powerful now, you can have BOTH! (Go go PCs!) You could have hyper immersive graphics with epic storylines, fantastic and revolutionary gameplay etc. And before you say cost - it is faster to use the new engines which look better than to use the old game engines. Again, this is due to PC power and new, efficient and streamlined engines.

DirectX 11 is used in a lot of games, what are you even talking about here? its a windows platform..

@bolded eh... are you okay ? thats what I said have you even read what I just said? that whooooooooolle thing? I tried to be as direct as possible so you would actually read it.

and you can't max out an engine, holy crap what the fuck man.