By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Heavy Rain Graphic Quality Destroys The PC Gaming Business

Squilliam said:
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.

1. 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.

2. This is why I hate comparison videos and such. Developers have become lazy, and it takes people like rocksteady to make things right. Anyway..


3. 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.

4. 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...

5. 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

 

 

You're talking to a fellow programmer btw (Reasonable)

1. Theres a sheer brute force difference which cannot be overcome. The HD 58xx range from AMD is 2Tflops+ and the graphics cards have tricks up their sleeves that the PS3 couldn't hope to compete with. Shader model 5 vs shader model 3 for instance, tessellation, multi-threaded rendering, compute shaders etc.

2. Say that to their face why don't you. Actually stand at the door at crunch time and call them lazy, I wanna place bets to see if it would provoke anyone to take a swing at you. (no offense intended)

3. Funny the times when the game really shines are the times when you can put down the controller and watch... funny huh?

4. Expensive yeah... but doesn't look as good as a game which cost half as much to make (Crysis), which I might add was released in 2007.

5. Hardware that doesn't exist huh? You'd probably nail that sucker out at 2560 by 1600 with an AA mode of your choosing and 16x AF on a modern GPU at the same frame rate as the PS3. Its a visual intensive game, theres very little else to it. What good that the Cell brings is being used to make it look pretty and a PC with say an HD 4870 or better under the hood doesn't need to call on the CPU for help.

 

Again, you could do it, I never said you could not. I simply said development would be very difficult because you would need to ensure it would run on a wide range of hardware. Of course Brute force will do it, but what happens next gen? We get even closer..


Think about it? Why hasn't their been any PC games to come out over the last 2 years that rival the console exclusives in terms of graphics? What if the next consoles have cards that are as good as 4870s(4890 is where its at imo..)?

WIth PCs you're forced to develop for ever changing technology, its really difficult to optimize on them. In general, you do very little optimization.. CRYTEK is actually amazing at optimization, and look how well that went?  Basically no one could play the game when it came out.

CRYTEK has developed the cryengine 3 for consoles and PC. While the PC does look better, they have invested a lot of time and resources into making the consol engines and they look just about as good. If this isn't proof I don't know what is.



Around the Network
inverted3reality said:
Squilliam said:
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.

1. 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.

2. This is why I hate comparison videos and such. Developers have become lazy, and it takes people like rocksteady to make things right. Anyway..


3. 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.

4. 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...

5. 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

 

 

You're talking to a fellow programmer btw (Reasonable)

1. Theres a sheer brute force difference which cannot be overcome. The HD 58xx range from AMD is 2Tflops+ and the graphics cards have tricks up their sleeves that the PS3 couldn't hope to compete with. Shader model 5 vs shader model 3 for instance, tessellation, multi-threaded rendering, compute shaders etc.

2. Say that to their face why don't you. Actually stand at the door at crunch time and call them lazy, I wanna place bets to see if it would provoke anyone to take a swing at you. (no offense intended)

3. Funny the times when the game really shines are the times when you can put down the controller and watch... funny huh?

4. Expensive yeah... but doesn't look as good as a game which cost half as much to make (Crysis), which I might add was released in 2007.

5. Hardware that doesn't exist huh? You'd probably nail that sucker out at 2560 by 1600 with an AA mode of your choosing and 16x AF on a modern GPU at the same frame rate as the PS3. Its a visual intensive game, theres very little else to it. What good that the Cell brings is being used to make it look pretty and a PC with say an HD 4870 or better under the hood doesn't need to call on the CPU for help.

 

Again, you could do it, I never said you could not. I simply said development would be very difficult because you would need to ensure it would run on a wide range of hardware. Of course Brute force will do it, but what happens next gen? We get even closer..


Think about it? Why hasn't their been any PC games to come out over the last 2 years that rival the console exclusives in terms of graphics? What if the next consoles have cards that are as good as 4870s(4890 is where its at imo..)?

WIth PCs you're forced to develop for ever changing technology, its really difficult to optimize on them. In general, you do very little optimization.. CRYTEK is actually amazing at optimization, and look how well that went?  Basically no one could play the game when it came out.

CRYTEK has developed the cryengine 3 for consoles and PC. While the PC does look better, they have invested a lot of time and resources into making the consol engines and they look just about as good. If this isn't proof I don't know what is.

Crysis Warhead says hi.

Besides Rage running at ultimate settings on a top of the range PC looks better then any other game on the market and will be the best looking game for a loooong time unless Crytek really push the graphics with Crysis 2 on PC. I doubt it though since they are working on 3 different platforms.



Most of the getting games to work on different hardware levels is done by the Operating System, the developer APIs (DirectX, OpenGL), and Middleware engines.

PC development is one of the easiest things to do.



kiefer23 said:
inverted3reality said:
Squilliam said:
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.

1. 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.

2. This is why I hate comparison videos and such. Developers have become lazy, and it takes people like rocksteady to make things right. Anyway..


3. 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.

4. 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...

5. 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

 

 

You're talking to a fellow programmer btw (Reasonable)

1. Theres a sheer brute force difference which cannot be overcome. The HD 58xx range from AMD is 2Tflops+ and the graphics cards have tricks up their sleeves that the PS3 couldn't hope to compete with. Shader model 5 vs shader model 3 for instance, tessellation, multi-threaded rendering, compute shaders etc.

2. Say that to their face why don't you. Actually stand at the door at crunch time and call them lazy, I wanna place bets to see if it would provoke anyone to take a swing at you. (no offense intended)

3. Funny the times when the game really shines are the times when you can put down the controller and watch... funny huh?

4. Expensive yeah... but doesn't look as good as a game which cost half as much to make (Crysis), which I might add was released in 2007.

5. Hardware that doesn't exist huh? You'd probably nail that sucker out at 2560 by 1600 with an AA mode of your choosing and 16x AF on a modern GPU at the same frame rate as the PS3. Its a visual intensive game, theres very little else to it. What good that the Cell brings is being used to make it look pretty and a PC with say an HD 4870 or better under the hood doesn't need to call on the CPU for help.

 

Again, you could do it, I never said you could not. I simply said development would be very difficult because you would need to ensure it would run on a wide range of hardware. Of course Brute force will do it, but what happens next gen? We get even closer..


Think about it? Why hasn't their been any PC games to come out over the last 2 years that rival the console exclusives in terms of graphics? What if the next consoles have cards that are as good as 4870s(4890 is where its at imo..)?

WIth PCs you're forced to develop for ever changing technology, its really difficult to optimize on them. In general, you do very little optimization.. CRYTEK is actually amazing at optimization, and look how well that went?  Basically no one could play the game when it came out.

CRYTEK has developed the cryengine 3 for consoles and PC. While the PC does look better, they have invested a lot of time and resources into making the consol engines and they look just about as good. If this isn't proof I don't know what is.

Crysis Warhead says hi.

Besides Rage running at ultimate settings on a top of the range PC looks better then any other game on the market and will be the best looking game for a loooong time unless Crytek really push the graphics with Crysis 2 on PC. I doubt it though since they are working on 3 different platforms.

Didn't Crytek say that the graphics of the console versions will be about medium-high level on PC? Even then the resolution is probably only 720P on the consoles. And with the video I saw (I think it was on IGN), they seem to have made multiplatform development ridiculously simple, so I wouldn't be suprised if the new engine really does push PC graphics to yet another level.

@ bolded:

Crysis 1 has sold over 1 million copies (was announced about 3-4 months after release). Thats at least 1 million people with computers that could play Crysis when released (not to mention the number of pirates that were probably enjoying the game illegaly).



inverted3reality said:
Squilliam said:

You're talking to a fellow programmer btw (Reasonable)

1. Theres a sheer brute force difference which cannot be overcome. The HD 58xx range from AMD is 2Tflops+ and the graphics cards have tricks up their sleeves that the PS3 couldn't hope to compete with. Shader model 5 vs shader model 3 for instance, tessellation, multi-threaded rendering, compute shaders etc.

2. Say that to their face why don't you. Actually stand at the door at crunch time and call them lazy, I wanna place bets to see if it would provoke anyone to take a swing at you. (no offense intended)

3. Funny the times when the game really shines are the times when you can put down the controller and watch... funny huh?

4. Expensive yeah... but doesn't look as good as a game which cost half as much to make (Crysis), which I might add was released in 2007.

5. Hardware that doesn't exist huh? You'd probably nail that sucker out at 2560 by 1600 with an AA mode of your choosing and 16x AF on a modern GPU at the same frame rate as the PS3. Its a visual intensive game, theres very little else to it. What good that the Cell brings is being used to make it look pretty and a PC with say an HD 4870 or better under the hood doesn't need to call on the CPU for help.

 

Again, you could do it, I never said you could not. I simply said development would be very difficult because you would need to ensure it would run on a wide range of hardware. Of course Brute force will do it, but what happens next gen? We get even closer..


Think about it? Why hasn't their been any PC games to come out over the last 2 years that rival the console exclusives in terms of graphics? What if the next consoles have cards that are as good as 4870s(4890 is where its at imo..)?

WIth PCs you're forced to develop for ever changing technology, its really difficult to optimize on them. In general, you do very little optimization.. CRYTEK is actually amazing at optimization, and look how well that went?  Basically no one could play the game when it came out.

CRYTEK has developed the cryengine 3 for consoles and PC. While the PC does look better, they have invested a lot of time and resources into making the consol engines and they look just about as good. If this isn't proof I don't know what is.

The reason why a wide range of hardware can exist is because of APIs, standards (X86, Windows, Direct 3d) so it really doesn't matter what the hardware is as long as it conforms to the standards and runs the APIs acceptably. The problems exist for the most part on the software front with so many possible conflicting programs, a user problem really. Nvidias TWIMTBP program tests IIRC 75 major hardware configurations for the developers as part of the package, which is why they use it.

Why haven't their been any games coming out which rival the console exclusives? My pick is that its a perceptual problem, your perception. Beyond that theres more to graphics than just the look of them. If you want consistant higher framerates, no tearing, no aliasing problems, you'll have to look beyond consoles for that. Just because Crysis is picked, doesn't mean there aren't any other PC games which look wonderful. I suggest you look in this thread if you want proof < http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45986&page=35 > and work your way backwards. It isn't just Crysis, though thats the favourite.

With Crysis anyone with a gaming PC at the time could play the game. Its like buying a kid an oversized sweater so he can grow into it. Some kids (gaming PCs) grow faster or slower than others and thats natural. With console hardware coming up you have to consider the current launch TDP to be excessive and inpractical. A next generation console will probably have to live on the power draw of a mid/high end standalone PC GPU.

Finally, Crytek haven't really shown off their PC engine yet for Cry Engine 3. My pick is they are working on Direct 3d 11 support before they do.



Tease.

Around the Network

HHG is an idiot.



BTW - I like consoles, I like the cheaper price point vs PC (particularly right now when I'm reviewing new cards).

But let's just be realistic. The article is way off base. Consoles clearly need a certain price point to sell well, so that is always going to cut across filling them to the brim with cutting edge elements.

PC's don't. Sure, they can and are used for gaming, but they're used in CAD design, etc. - i.e. they have a whole other, less cost constrained life supporting high end graphics.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

@ Reasonable:

Are you a fanATIc or an Nvidiot? *JK*

Btw ATI are announcing their DX11 range of cards Sept 10 with full retail availability coming around the end of that month. If you do any media work, Direct X compute should be very interesting to you.



Tease.

It's really a shame this game is going to be a PS3 exclusive.

It could have sold so much better on the PC/Xbox forum.

By the way, please be a smart person and never, ever compare a consoles graphic capability to that of a constantly evolving format.



dorbin2009 said:
It's really a shame this game is going to be a PS3 exclusive.

It could have sold so much better on the PC/Xbox forum.

By the way, please be a smart person and never, ever compare a consoles graphic capability to that of a constantly evolving format.

It wont sell well on the PC (heavy piracy)

Itr wont sell on xbox becouse there is no shooting XD (joke)

But seriously this kind of game well sells better on the PS3



Vote to Localize — SEGA and Konami Polls

Vote Today To Help Get A Konami & SEGA Game Localized.This Will Only Work If Lots Of People Vote.

Click on the Image to Head to the Voting Page (A vote for Yakuza is a vote to save gaming)