inverted3reality said:
Reasonable said: So funny. Completely ignoring that, no matter how good any console game looks, you can take it to PC and make it look better if you want.
The console simply has less power - how the hell is it magically going to be able to deliver better results?
Sure, because the specs are fixed there are development advantages, you can optimize really well, etc. but in the end more power is more power and that's what the PC has.
|
You're right, it is because the specs are fixed. But you're also wrong, PC gaming will have nothing on consoles come next generation. The PS3 is just the start. Games that come in the next two years will simply not be possible on PCs.
As a programmer, a computer engineer, and someone who does this for a living, I'll try to put some explination into this.
When you develop for a PC you have to deal with the operating system taking an overhead of the system resources. With consoles this is very little on the ps3, and more on the 360 (And I've used both dev kits to prove this.)
Besides that, every single aspect of the code and engine is designed to work specifically with the hardware that is in the system. This is why multi-plats (generally) look worse than exclusive counterparts. When you see a game that does not look as good on one console compared to the other, it is simply because the developers did not put enough work into the engine for the console which is inferior.
This is why I hate comparison videos and such. Developers have become lazy, and it takes people like rocksteady to make things right. Anyway..
Games like Metal Gear Solid 4 are simply not possible in a multi-platform form. People seriously underestimate just how good metal gear solid 4 looks. I know that because of the nature of the game a lot of it doesn't always shine, but the character models, animations, guns, effects, and even most of the environments in this game are done better than crysis, far better than crysis actually. MGS4 was bar none the best looking videogame ever made when it came out, and until we get heavy rain or gow III, it still is. It may have low textures in some parts, but that is simply due to the complete overkill that was done in other parts of the game.
Mind you, MGS4 was incredibly expensive, as well be gow III and heavy rain. You simply cannot get that kind of technology without intense optimization and research into the hardware. This is why games like Alan Wake, which does look absolutely amazing, will not look as good as MGS4/HR. Its nothing to do with the hardware, it's to do with the money invested by the developers. Remedy is far from rich...
You could make Heavy Rain for the PC right now, but it would require hardware that doesn't exist, unless it was designed for specific hardware, which would be useless for a PC. it needs to work on all sorts of hardware.
So to close off the OPs statement, you're absolutely right. As consoles progress and developers get better, it's going to become harder and harder for PC games to outdo games that are designed for specific hardware, the few games I've worked on are all multi-plat titles and we always use one engine. It's very hard to optimize the engine for just TWO sets of hardware, imagine doing it for the pc? would be sick
|
I see no evidence to support you other than market changes.
PS3/360 barely matched PCs at launch and are now way behind in power. Sure, PC supports OS, etc. but whichever way you cut it the base power is more and with the mass market price pointvs the higher price point for PC games consoles will always lag.
The difference is that, due to switches in market popularity, consoles are increasingly the target level not PC. CoD4 on 360/PS3 looked pretty good but was heavily limited in physics, etc. due to lack of power. PC was better but not as good as it could have been - due to market influence rather than capability.
I'll leave it to others with more tech knowledge than me - but I have a gaming PC, am reviewing latest cards right now, and I gotta tell you - removing cost/market from the equation its obvious that technically PCs are miles ahead and likely to remain so unless the market changes so much games aren't developed on them.
But as high end business graphical users are going to remain on them - for the really graphically intensive stuff, a high end PC with high end graphical capabilities will remain ahead of consoles.
TBH your comments surprise me. You appear to be letting cost and market considerations influence a technical viewpoint. Gaming on PC may become too expensive - but the savings will also translate to less powerful titles. Heck, PS3/360 have most (not all) of their big graphical titles at resolutions way below PC level, and with cut down physics, etc. too. You really think that's all going to switch (technically) with new consoles? With the Wii creaming the HD twins with a fraction of the power? With MS and Sony investing in motion controls and indicating that this gen is going to last longer? With developers squealing about cost of high end development on consoles to a graphical level below big PC titles?
When I look at Gears, Killzone 2, Uncharted, etc. I'm impressed - then I wonder how they'd look if the developer optimized them for a high end gaming PC.