|
Take for example, games like God of War, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Uncharted 4.
They are all on consoles only and in terms of just design and graphics, look better than anything on PC(mods not included). Imagine those games running at native 4K/60fps. You'd need some of the beefiest gaming rigs to achieve this. The way I see it is, console developers sacrifice stable and frame rates above 30 for pretty graphics.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
No.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud |
|
In short; no.
It really depends on the hardware. Older PC hardware isn't as good as modern console hardware is, but generally speaking PC hardware is almost always a step (or a few steps...) ahead of consoles. RDR2 looks good, but the original Xbox One can only run it at 864p and 30fps. The Xbox One X can run it at a 4K native resolution, but still only at 30fps. Other games on that console also tend to be locked to 30fps at that resolution as well. Meanwhile, on the PC (and admittedly on different engines and games) you can run games at higher framerates at that same resolution and the same (or better) graphics settings. Take Forza Horizon 4 for example; you can run it at 4K 30fps on the Xbox One X, but just about any PC graphics card made in the last 4 years can do that or far greater: https://www.techspot.com/review/1716-forza-horizon-4-gpu-benchmarks/ |
|
OUberLord posted...
In short; no. However, Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 still look miles better than Forza Horizon 4. The only thing that game and near all PC games have over them is higher frame rates that are stable and better resolution. If its a PC exclusive game, 9 out of 10 times it looks like Pillars of Eternity.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
Nice bait topic, you already know the answer, hence why you posted on the PC board.
Ryzen 7 2700X | ASUS X470 ROG | G.Skill 16GB 3600Mhz DDR4 | Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | MSI GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X | 28" Acer Predator 4K G-Sync
|
|
BrokenMachine85 posted...
Nice bait topic, you already know the answer, hence why you posted on the PC board. WTF are you talking about and if you think this topic is bait, why post in it? Lack self-control much?
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
KINDERFELD posted...
BrokenMachine85 posted...Nice bait topic, you already know the answer, hence why you posted on the PC board. To warn others before they get sucked in.
Ryzen 7 2700X | ASUS X470 ROG | G.Skill 16GB 3600Mhz DDR4 | Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | MSI GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X | 28" Acer Predator 4K G-Sync
|
|
BrokenMachine85 posted...
KINDERFELD posted...BrokenMachine85 posted...show hidden quote(s) Again, WTF are you talking about?
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
KINDERFELD posted...
BrokenMachine85 posted...KINDERFELD posted...show hidden quote(s) So this is a serious topic? 0.0 I see.
Ryzen 7 2700X | ASUS X470 ROG | G.Skill 16GB 3600Mhz DDR4 | Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | MSI GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X | 28" Acer Predator 4K G-Sync
|
|
Frankly, if you had the smallest self-control and researched the difference between console hardware and PC hardware, you would immediately recognize that it wouldn't make sense for a console to have better graphics than a PC...
The main difference being how the game was developed. For example, any game that was created for console pre-PS2 era took a hell of a long time to emulate on PC. Now that the folks behind those emulators caught up with the code, they made PS2-era games (and prior) look a hundred times better by upping the texture resolution and sugar, spice and everything else, IF YOU PLAYED THEM ON PC. So, no. Console games were developed on PC first, and fast-tracked to work on specific hardware. If you had the choice to mod your PS4 or XB1X, you would stick a RTX 2080 in there and your console would cost 1400$, but if the games were built for a free market and developed so that it worked on any hardware, you would be playing Black Ops 4 at a much better resolution/framerate if the console let you put a better GPU in it. Did that make sense to you?
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
No, it's not. Obvious bait start to finish. Guess who fell for it?
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud |
|
And scene.
/Topic
Ryzen 7 2700X | ASUS X470 ROG | G.Skill 16GB 3600Mhz DDR4 | Samsung 970 Evo M.2 | MSI GTX 1080 Ti Gaming X | 28" Acer Predator 4K G-Sync
|
|
-GhosT- posted...
Frankly, if you had the smallest self-control and researched the difference between console hardware and PC hardware, you would immediately recognize that it wouldn't make sense for a console to have better graphics than a PC... Modding doesn't count because that's basically a game that already took years to develop then being further modded(developed) for months to years. Hell there are still new Skyrim graphics mods coming out.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
KINDERFELD posted...
Take for example, games like God of War, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Uncharted 4. Sorry, it's almost like you aren't expecting RDR2 to have a PC port that allows PC gamers to play it at 1440p/60fps easily, and in the near future, 4k/60fps relatively easily. Can you make this topic when Rockstar announces RDR2 on PC? We can't wait. *EDIT: I never fucking mentioned modding buddy. I was talking about Emulators natively upscaling games better than a PS2 could.*
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
Can you guys name one game that is graphically more advanced(not frame rate or resolution) than the games I've mentioned?
I've maxed out a lot of multiplatform games on my pc at 4K and though they look excellent and run better than anything on console, I cannot say I've seen graphics like God of War or Red Dead Redemption on pc.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
-GhosT- posted...
KINDERFELD posted...Take for example, games like God of War, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Uncharted 4. Why wait till then? Name games that are that graphically superior on PC right now. All you can mention is multiplatform games. But nothing exclusive to the PC pushes graphics like those games.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
Uhhh... GTA 5
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG |
|
You have a complete lack of understanding of what graphic settings are, don't you?
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG |
|
-GhosT- posted...
You have a complete lack of understanding of what graphic settings are, don't you? No. I'm saying no PC exclusive pushes graphics like console games do. All you guys can mention is multiplatform games and nothing else. Nothing exclusive to the PC pushes graphics like those games do.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
How better to prove you wrong, than to take a Console game and port it to PC and absolutely destroy the console's graphics?
You think because RDR2 came out on console first, it won't immediately put sliders on every single graphic setting and allow PC users to push the game to something that makes consoles look like muddy trash? Get a grip, man. This is some baby level trolling.
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
-GhosT- posted...
How better to prove you wrong, than to take a Console game and port it to PC and absolutely destroy the console's graphics? All you'll be doing is playing a console game......but if it were a PC exclusive, expect Diablo graphics...
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
-GhosT- posted...
How better to prove you wrong, than to take a Console game and port it to PC and absolutely destroy the console's graphics? Because you cannot refute what I'm saying, I'm trolling? Please name one PC exclusive that pushes graphics to the point like God of War or Horizon Zero Dawn.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
BTW, we're still waiting for consoles to reach Witcher 3 PC graphics.
Or, just catch up to GTA 5 PC graphics. Or, just do anything that actually hits 1080p 60fps without looking like complete garbage.
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG |
|
-GhosT- posted...
BTW, we're still waiting for consoles to reach Witcher 3 PC graphics. Again, name some PC exclusives that push graphics like those multiplatform games you've mentioned.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
Since I've gotten my gaming PC, when it comes to seeing nice graphics, I have to play multiplatform games, meaning, these games are also on consoles.
When it comes to PC exclusives, I cannot find any that are pushing graphics like those other games. Why is that?
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
That's not proving your point in the least, do you get that? The second that those games are ported to PC, you'll want to delete this entire thread.
Why is that? Because developers develop for the mainstream market, to make a shit-ton of money. It has nothing to do with the platform. FF15 developers directly told interviewers that they regretted developing for PS4, because it inherently kept them from making a good looking game. Look at FF15 on PC, and you'll see something that your console will not achieve in years. Maybe not even the next gen console.
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
-GhosT- posted...
That's not proving your point in the least, do you get that? The second that those games are ported to PC, you'll want to delete this entire thread. Then they'll be console games finally brought to PC. However, right now, they're exclusives and they may not run at stable frame rates or above 30, but they are pushing graphics in a way PC exclusives simply aren't.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
*psst* those games being exclusive is not something that you should celebrate buddy
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG |
|
-GhosT- posted...
*psst* those games being exclusive is not something that you should celebrate buddy Why are you guys so quick to align people with a side? I own almost all current gen consoles including a freaking 1080ti. I am just stating my experience. PC exclusives do not push graphics like consoles do.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
Back to The Witcher 3 : it released simultaneously on console and PC.
3 Years Later.... Hey consoles, get with it? *EDIT: The Witcher 3 even had to downgrade their goddamn graphics so that the game could reliably run on consoles. So PC gamers had to fuck off and eat the downgrade so that your console 'port' could function. Did that just kick your teeth in?*
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
I just played and beat Sword of Legends 3, I find the game to have next-gen graphics and some of the best texture work I've seen to-date. And yes it's a PC exclusive.
 This kind of texture work wouldn't be possible on consoles, on high it uses 4GB of VRAM even at 720P.
"dude i am like a 10 th grader,i am not smart i am not smart okay.i know basic english not level 100 english lol" -stephanielish
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
zhenghan posted...
I just played and beat Sword of Legends 3, I find the game to have next-gen graphics and some of the best texture work I've seen to-date. And yes it's a PC exclusive. I stand corrected. Very pretty game. I'll have to check it out. Has it been localized? At first, I didn't think it looked all that but further along the video, looks gorgeous!
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
aren't exclusives like black desert online already killing console graphics without the limitations of small open areas/linear hallways/sub-30fps/fake 4k etc.?
 of course, console versions have been in the works but for now it's exclusive and most likely won't look as good even on the xbone x. it's also pretty idiotic and very peasant-like mentality to "only" want exclusives that look better since PC is not the platform notorious for holding games hostage. also, "when" it releases:  (console version rumored but not confirmed but there's no chance it will look or run as good as the gameplay video above) |
|
AsucaHayashi posted...
aren't exclusives like black desert online already killing console graphics without the limitations of small open areas/linear hallways/sub-30fps/fake 4k etc.? I humbly and genuinely apologize. I'm relatively new to pc gaming. I got mine 5 months ago. I didn't know games like those existed. Can you guys recommend ones that look like those but aren't online.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
Play both PS4 and PC. Also have those exclusives you mentioned, but PC will always be better especially if you have at least an RX 580/1060 for the PC.
Diablo Immortal!
|
|
Ye you just don't see polished games like RDR2 unless it's for console. It'll be interesting once it comes to PC and Digitalfoundry recommends the required PC to target Xbox One X settings.
Most PC versions are barely more than Xbox One ports with the option to use brute force for Gameworks and higher resolutions. And most PC exclusives have bad multithreading and uses old APIs and might even target old Intel IGPs.
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
I think the main problem is that you assumed that game devs can only develop games for a singular platform, and that since the God of War devs made the game exclusive to PS4, they couldn't have pushed for higher graphics.
It's the opposite. They pushed the graphics as far as they could to make it compatible with PS4 hardware. They could've easily ignored the PS4 requisites and made the same game run on PC, but allow people to set custom settings that their hardware can handle. You seem to think that a PC gamer couldn't run GoW on their PC with the original build that the GoW devs made. That's absolutely moronic. If the GoW devs made sure that Nvidia and AMD fitted their drivers to match their code in the CONSUMER BUILD, GoW would run just as well, if not better, than consoles do. But since it's a PS4 exclusive, they weren't allowed to do that. If they were given a chance, they would use the dev build that they used with the Nvidia/AMD drivers that they used to DEVELOP the game, and optimize THAT instead of the PS4 shitty hardware, to create the same game, with 1000 graphical options to allow people to run GoW in 4k. It wouldn't be very hard. That's why they're called "EXCLUSIVES"... because they limit the devs and keep them from optimizing for multi-platforming.
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG |
|
AsucaHayashi posted...
aren't exclusives like black desert online already killing console graphics without the limitations of small open areas/linear hallways/sub-30fps/fake 4k etc.?of course, console versions have been in the works but for now it's exclusive and most likely won't look as good even on the xbone x. That's quite a high-end PC and still only at 1440p. The obvious pop-ins happening each time he's sprinting sadly makes it seem like a console port.
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
|
|
-GhosT- posted...
I think the main problem is that you assumed that game devs can only develop games for a singular platform, and that since the God of War devs made the game exclusive to PS4, they couldn't have pushed for higher graphics. I never once alluded to that and it baffles me that someone could read my posts and arrive at that conclusion. I will reiterate for your convenience. I was of the opinion that pc exclusives do not push graphics the way console exclusives tend to do.
the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps
|
|
Gotta hand it to TC, he is sticking with it.
Glorious 4K/Vive VR PC Master Race
Gamefaqs PCH Discord channel: https://discord.gg/EmPEfdC |
|
Game Developers fold to Game Publishers and seriously hamper their own art to fit the Console market, even limiting their own assets and engines, so that industry Fat Cats can pay people to create showreels like Fallout 76 did, and try to sell as many units as they can for a (((product))) that is seriously under-representing the kind of complete video game experience that 2018 gamers made clear they want to experience.
So yes, in the end, you are completely correct saying that many PC games are a victim of the Console market. That doesn't mean that there aren't developers who think ahead and make the console games a PORT in the end, costing them less money in the long term, and creating a better product in the end.
I'm A Man of Principles, Damn Near Invincible
www.twitch.tv/GilgameshGG
(edited 1 week ago)
|
|
Ccrrraaawwwwlllliinnnggggg iiinnnnn mmmmyyyyy ssskkkkiiinnnn
You've got ten minutes. There's policies even your section have to follow
I'll be sure to forward your message to the president. |
 |
|
gr8 b8 m8
|
|
denuvo games=yes,
non denuvo games=no.
Ys,megaman,harvest moon,sly cooper,rune factory,shin megami tensei,growlanser,superman,bomberman,shump,sonic,megaman fan
|
|
"KINDERFELD
Sage User Since: Apr 2002 Karma: 3396 Active Posts: 155 Total Badges: 23" You're far too old to be creating obvious bait topics like this. Might want to re-evaluate your life before it's too late.
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES |
|
-GhosT- posted...
Why is that? Because developers develop for the mainstream market, to make a shit-ton of money. It has nothing to do with the platform. FF15 developers directly told interviewers that they regretted developing for PS4, because it inherently kept them from making a good looking game. Source?
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES |
|
KINDERFELD posted...
Why are you guys so quick to align people with a side? Doubtful - every single vehement anti-PC troll has been a console fanboy. If you really own a "1080ti", then why create this thread and bash every PC exclusive as "Diablo graphics", hell, why invest in this mythical "1080ti" to begin with if consoles are the pinnacle of graphical tech?
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES |
|
KINDERFELD posted...
Can you guys name one game that is graphically more advanced(not graphics setting or graphics setting) than the games I've mentioned? FTFY go troll somewhere else |
- Boards
- PC
- Does console graphics look better than PC minus the frame rate performance?
BrokenMachine85 posted...Nice bait topic, you already know the answer, hence why you posted on the PC board.
3DS FC: 5214-9942-1912JKatarn posted...KINDERFELD posted...
Why are you guys so quick to align people with a side?
I own almost all current gen consoles including a freaking 1080ti.
Doubtful - every single vehement anti-PC troll has been a console fanboy. If you really own a "1080ti", then why create this thread and bash every PC exclusive as "Diablo graphics", hell, why invest in this mythical "1080ti" to begin with if consoles are the pinnacle of graphical tech?
Please read the entire topic.the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps(edited 1 week ago)I’ll say this HDR in games like Gears of War though Xbox One X looks amazing on my TV....... HDR TVs will full array back lighting or OLED are a night and day difference to HDR on PC with monitors and most of them one backlight.MASKOAAA posted...I’ll say this HDR in games like Gears of War though Xbox One X looks amazing on my TV....... HDR TVs will full array back lighting or OLED are a night and day difference to HDR on PC with monitors and most of them one backlight.
hook your pc up to the tv and play a game that lets you use hdr.Havent seen the latest console exclusives but it does seem that some exclusives get extra attention in the graphics dept. Bloodborne on PS 4 looks better than Dark Souls 3 maxed on pc for example.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.KINDERFELD posted...JKatarn posted...
KINDERFELD posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Doubtful - every single vehement anti-PC troll has been a console fanboy. If you really own a "1080ti", then why create this thread and bash every PC exclusive as "Diablo graphics", hell, why invest in this mythical "1080ti" to begin with if consoles are the pinnacle of graphical tech?
Please read the entire topic.
Why would we waste our time with such obvious bait?i7 3820 @ 4.5GHz | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | 8GB Samsung DDR3 2133 | PCP&C 600WThere's some cases where PC port is awful and buggy (arkham knight for example). On the whole though a modern PC will run everything better.
Consoles are quite good at doing trickery to make it feel smoother though and games are better optimised in general.
The reality is that a PC is like twice as powerful but sometimes games only run 50% better.Pokemon X FC 4940-6875-7569Short answer is, no.
Long answer? There are good looking games on all platforms, regardless of if they're exclusive or multiplatform. In general, when talking console games, devs use a lot of techniques to try to keep the console versions running well enough while attempting to get as good of a fidelity as possible from the limited hardware. With PC games, they don't have these restraints and let users tweek things how they see fit. Even with exclusives, yes, they'll push things like the textures and lighting but it becomes very apparent while playing them where they had to make concessions.
In example, Horizon Zero Dawn has fantastic textures and lighting but much of the foliage in the game doesn't react to the players movement at all, the water is even less interactive then the foliage, and the game seems to lack falling physics. This is a running theme with a lot of Sony's games. Focus on making the game very pretty but cut back in other areas that would use up resources. Personally, when talking console exclusives, I prefer the approach that Nintendo generally takes. In Breath of the Wild, they went with a much more simplified look with a pretty art style to focus on the small details that take up more performance. Here's some examples:
As for PC, the great thing about it is, while most of the PC exclusives aren't these type of epic single player story driven games, when those type of games are ported over to PC, they usually (not always says Batman Arkham Knight) have a lot more graphical options that add in even better textures, better lighting, better effects, more physics, etc. Sure, it won't ever be like going from Horizon Zero Dawn levels of physics to Breath of the Wild levels of interactivity, but in cases like Final Fantasy XV, there were some improvements across the board.
Then again, while I love my PC and prefer playing games on it, I also like my consoles and think games on them also look good. Even if games are multiplatform and look significantly better on my significantly more powerful rig, considering I got my PS4 Slim for $200 and my XB1 S for $150, their visuals and performance in games isn't bad at all. I can see why people would prefer investing in them when you have games that look as good as God of War 4, Forza Horizon 4, and Red Dead Redemption 2 on them along with the ease of use of consoles. Just know that those games aren't the end all be all of game visuals and there are some very good looking PC exclusives (particularly in the MMO department) out there.Yay gaming(edited 1 week ago)TC is the same guy that says people shouldn't be allowed to use the term "sjw"
That tells me all I need to know about him.Corsair 550D/ Gigabyte Z170X Gaming3 / Vengeance 16GB DDR4 2666 / i-5 6600k / MSI Twin Frozr VI 6GB GTX 1060 /KINDERFELD posted...-GhosT- posted...
How better to prove you wrong, than to take a Console game and port it to PC and absolutely destroy the console's graphics?
You think because RDR2 came out on console first, it won't immediately put sliders on every single graphic setting and allow PC users to push the game to something that makes consoles look like muddy trash?
Get a grip, man.
All you'll be doing is playing a console game......but if it were a PC exclusive, expect Diablo graphics...
and if you werent an obvious troll i would expect a far more intelligent response.
Instead of just nonsense trash that isnt worth my time going back and forth which is why I am not arguing about the topic itself but instead just pointing out your own folly as I find that far more entertaining.I6700K - ZOTAC GTX1080 - 16 GBDDR4 RAM- NU8000 49 Inch + LG C8 OLED55
"You'd best start believing in ghost stories Miss Turner. You're in one!"KINDERFELD posted...If its a PC exclusive game, 9 out of 10 times it looks like Pillars of Eternity.
Tell me: if you created games, would you ever make one exclusive to PC? if you have a working brain, the answer is NO.
There's NO reason to limit a game you made with your heart to only PC players.
The difference is that Sony, M$ and Nintendo pay for exclusivity, because consoles NEEDS exclusives. PC is different, mostly for the fact that PC gaming isn't owned by one company, so there's no reason to make a game exclusive.
With that in mind, remember that what dictate how the game will look is mostly the limitations of the machine where the most sales will happen. In this gen, the PS4. Since consoles are inferior to PCs in every way, companies have no reason to make the game look amazing for PC, since they would have to downgrade it to much for consoles.
Remember how The Witcher 3 was downgraded near release, due to the fact that consoles would end up with a highly inferior version if they didn't downgrade it? That's the problem: CDPR admited consoles are important for them, and that if it wasn't for consoles, Witcher 3 wouldn't exist. But because of that we, PC gamers, got a downgraded version. The PC version is still the best looking one, but could be even better if it wasn't for the downgrade.
I remember people saying the same thing you are when GTA 5 was released. And yet, the PC version looks SO better than th console versions, it's not even funny.
Games like Uncharted 4 would look even better than they look if they were made for PCs. But sony would have to be pretty stupid to make it like that, right?When EA dares to ask for your opinion on their service, do this:
https://imgur.com/QGlOjvcKINDERFELD posted...I was of the opinion that pc exclusives do not push graphics the way console exclusives tend to do.
OBVIOUSLY.
If you spend millions of dollars to create a game, why would you make it PC exclusive?
PC gaming is not about exclusivity, it's about the best experience you can get. It's not for everyone (and doens't sound like it's for you), but it's a FACT that games look and run better on PC, except for a few dodgy ports here and there.
But no, don't expect high budget AAA games exclusives to PC. This would be stupid.When EA dares to ask for your opinion on their service, do this:
https://imgur.com/QGlOjvcTC's a fuckwit, so are all of you responding seriously. Faith in gamefaqs/10.Star Citizen /thread.Kinderfeld is trolling again, shocking. I still laugh about the Octopath Traveler blowup kinder had.(edited 1 week ago)KINDERFELD posted...Please read the entire topic.
I've read every trollish post and I remain unconvinced that you actually own PC hardware.Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NESGlobal warming is realYou've got ten minutes. There's policies even your section have to follow
I'll be sure to forward your message to the president.JKatarn posted...KINDERFELD posted...
Please read the entire topic.
I've read every trollish post and I remain unconvinced that you actually own PC hardware.
Gald to know your sole purpose for posting in here is to be harassing.the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gapsMarceloSampaio posted...KINDERFELD posted...
If its a PC exclusive game, 9 out of 10 times it looks like Pillars of Eternity.
Remember how The Witcher 3 was downgraded near release, due to the fact that consoles would end up with a highly inferior version if they didn't downgrade it? That's the problem: CDPR admited consoles are important for them, and that if it wasn't for consoles, Witcher 3 wouldn't exist. But because of that we, PC gamers, got a downgraded version. The PC version is still the best looking one, but could be even better if it wasn't for the downgrade.
Would any pc in 2015 have been able to run the non downgraded Witcher 3? The latest Titan gpu at the time might have been able to do 40 fps maybe.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...MarceloSampaio posted...
KINDERFELD posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Remember how The Witcher 3 was downgraded near release, due to the fact that consoles would end up with a highly inferior version if they didn't downgrade it? That's the problem: CDPR admited consoles are important for them, and that if it wasn't for consoles, Witcher 3 wouldn't exist. But because of that we, PC gamers, got a downgraded version. The PC version is still the best looking one, but could be even better if it wasn't for the downgrade.
Would any pc in 2015 have been able to run the non downgraded Witcher 3? The latest Titan gpu at the time might have been able to do 40 fps maybe.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone buys a game day 1, plays it for a week, and then throws it in the trash. Games are fantastic long-term entertainment.
I played Crysis more in 2010 than I ever did around it's release.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
MarceloSampaio posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Would any pc in 2015 have been able to run the non downgraded Witcher 3? The latest Titan gpu at the time might have been able to do 40 fps maybe.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone buys a game day 1, plays it for a week, and then throws it in the trash. Games are fantastic long-term entertainment.
I played Crysis more in 2010 than I ever did around it's release.
After rewatching the comparison video I wonder if even the Titan could have done 30+ fps. Still not worth it to include graphics no pc at the time can handle.
Why did the graphics change?
"If you're looking at the development process," Iwinski begins, "we do a certain build for a tradeshow and you pack it, it works, it looks amazing. And you are extremely far away from completing the game. Then you put it in the open-world, regardless of the platform, and it's like 'oh shit, it doesn't really work'.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...Still not worth it to include graphics no pc at the time can handle.
why not? consoles do it pretty much all the time so..Crenlar posted...After rewatching the comparison video I wonder if even the Titan could have done 30+ fps. Still not worth it to include graphics no pc at the time can handle.
Sounds like console peasant mentality to me. Should we restrict things like resolution and antialiasing as well, because "GPUs today can't do 4k 30fps in this game, so 4k shouldn't be an option at all, and neither should 60fps"a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
After rewatching the comparison video I wonder if even the Titan could have done 30+ fps. Still not worth it to include graphics no pc at the time can handle.
Sounds like console peasant mentality to me. Should we restrict things like resolution and antialiasing as well, because "GPUs today can't do 4k 30fps in this game, so 4k shouldn't be an option at all, and neither should 60fps"
Allowing all resolutions and aa options doesnt require much work on the devs part while creating more advanced graphics does.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Not removing more advanced graphics doesn't require any work, though. Just don't take it out.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Not removing more advanced graphics doesn't require any work, though. Just don't take it out.
The data-streaming system couldn't handle everything while Geralt galloped around.
They would have had to create a new streaming system to make the trailer graphics work. I doubt they had the whole world textured to the level of detail seen in the trailer anyways. How many more copies would they sell with graphics that only future hardware could handle?I am Crenrel and I approve this message.(edited 1 week ago)And how many of those things were actually just togglable effects? Things like full realtime reflections, or higher resolution math?a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudKINDERFELD posted...Gald to know your sole purpose for posting in here is to be harassing.
It's "glad", and when somebody makes an obvious troll thread, I respond in kind.Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NESYour console is just a non-upgradeable pc with a crappy OS, you do realise that right?
Also, all xbox exclusives also release on pc now, and they all look better on pc.I don't smoke dope, I don't drink bourbon, all I want to do is shake my turban.(edited 1 week ago)Crenlar posted...Bloodborne on PS 4 looks better than Dark Souls 3 maxed on pc for example.
lol, what?Romans1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of ChristDarkZV2Beta posted...And how many of those things were actually just togglable effects? Things like full realtime reflections, or higher resolution math?
Wouldnt they need to work on compatibility, optimizations and bugs on anything officially in the game?I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
And how many of those things were actually just togglable effects? Things like full realtime reflections, or higher resolution math?
Wouldnt they need to work on compatibility, optimizations and bugs on anything officially in the game?
You could make the same argument for resolution. UI can break at different resolutions if the game isn't properly made to handle it.
Hell, I broke CSGO's UI just by having a custom resolution that was too wide. Apparently, some other people must have as well, because now the game doesn't allow those resolutions to be selected.
I don't think realtime reflections would have required much testing, given how old an effect it is, and higher precision shaders certainly wouldn't.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Wouldnt they need to work on compatibility, optimizations and bugs on anything officially in the game?
You could make the same argument for resolution. UI can break at different resolutions if the game isn't properly made to handle it.
Hell, I broke CSGO's UI just by having a custom resolution that was too wide. Apparently, some other people must have as well, because now the game doesn't allow those resolutions to be selected.
I don't think realtime reflections would have required much testing, given how old an effect it is, and higher precision shaders certainly wouldn't.
Why would they program the game to allow resolutions that 99.99% of people dont use or might give an unfair advantage to?
Duke 3d from 1996 has working mirrors. Mafia 3 mirrors are totally bugged out.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Because PC is about choice. If you want the console lockdown mentality, buy a console and give up your options.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Because PC is about choice.
And thats why most pc games support a wide variety resolutionsI am Crenrel and I approve this message.(edited 1 week ago)And that's why features shouldn't be removed for shitty reasons.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudConsoles become outdated when they are launched. On average consoles are 6 to 8 years behind in graphics compares to PC in any given gen.Intel Core i7-5960X, Asus Rampage V Ex, G.SKILL X 16GB, GTX 980 ti 3 way SLI, Corsair H100i Watercool, EVGA SuperNOVA 1600 P2, WD Black 4TB HDD
PC Master RaceSaQu1B posted...Consoles become outdated when they are launched. On average consoles are 6 to 8 years behind in graphics compares to PC in any given gen.
Lol. Behind in resolution and framerate and that’s if you’ve upgraded the overall look of the game is the same since they develop it with console limitations in mindConsoles are just proprietary locked-down PCs with cheap hardware. They can get more performance out of the hardware because it only has to run a few background tasks and the architecture is specifically built with games in mind, but no console will ever beat a PC 1 vs 1 if the same games are running on each platform.
That said, some of the exclusive games for PS4 do look incredible. They'd look even better if there was a PC version though.SaQu1B posted...Consoles become outdated when they are launched. On average consoles are 6 to 8 years behind in graphics compares to PC in any given gen.
Lol, this level of hyperbole proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Console have never been "6 or 8 years" behind in graphics - the PS4/XB1 when they launched in 2012/2013 had APUs about equivalent to a mid-range GPU of that year, the PS3/360 were high-end in 2005/2006 but Sony/MS hemorrhaged money throughout most of the generation because of that, The PS2/Gamecube were about GeForce/GeForce 2 level feature/performance wise (which was current in 2000/2001), with the X-Box basically aping a high-end GeForce 3-based PC.
It's true that as static hardware, 5/6 years on they're not looking so hot next to the latest and greatest PC hardware, but of course the vast majority of the PC gaming market AREN'T using the "latest and greatest" anyway. There are FAR more systems out there that are closer to the base PS4/XB1 spec than the 2080ti.Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NESDarkZV2Beta posted...And that's why features shouldn't be removed for shitty reasons.
Features that dont work should be left in?I am Crenrel and I approve this message.tbqh, PS360 were more midrange in 2005/2006. Especially PS3, by the end of 2006, was leaning towards low end for it's graphics card, and had to rely on it's unorthadox CPU architecture to make up for it.
6-8 years behind is rather silly, though. 8 years before 360 launched, Quake 2 wasn't even out. 6 years before PS3 came out, Quake 3 was still fresh. In 2005~2006, there was nothing out that could compete with PS4 or Xbone. Even in 2009~2010, it took expensive, high end GPUs to come close.
By the time PS4 or Xbone actually came out, they were mid-range/low end compared to current market hardware, and were especially overpriced for what they offered, but that's a whole other matter.
Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
And that's why features shouldn't be removed for shitty reasons.
Features that dont work should be left in?
Do you really think realtime reflections didn't work?a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud(edited 1 week ago)To me, I don't really see much of a difference, especially in motion. Shadows are a little sharper. Textures are a little sharper. But when you're playing and you're immersed in the game, you don't really notice.
The framerates are a HUGE boost to the overall experience though. It's really really hard for me to play 30fps these days. I haven't played higher than 60. I can only imagine how hard it is for people that are used to those 144ish framerates to play console games.With deeper knowledge and experience, everything becomes more shallow.Boge posted...To me, I don't really see much of a difference, especially in motion. Shadows are a little sharper. Textures are a little sharper. But when you're playing and you're immersed in the game, you don't really notice.
The framerates are a HUGE boost to the overall experience though. It's really really hard for me to play 30fps these days. I haven't played higher than 60. I can only imagine how hard it is for people that are used to those 144ish framerates to play console games.
YUP
I tried playing Mario Kart 8 back when it came out on Wii U for some 4player splitscreen and was just... "nope, I can't do this, sorry"a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudIf they have added a feature, which only has the problem that the performance is crap, they might as well leave it in, possibly having it as an "experimental" option or the like in order not to get accused of the game being unoptimized.
There's little reason to spend time optimizing or fixing bugs for features that no one can use on the current hardware though.Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!DarkZV2Beta posted...tbqh, PS360 were more midrange in 2005/2006. Especially PS3, by the end of 2006, was leaning towards low end for it's graphics card, and had to rely on it's unorthadox CPU architecture to make up for it.
6-8 years behind is rather silly, though. 8 years before 360 launched, Quake 2 wasn't even out. 6 years before PS3 came out, Quake 3 was still fresh. In 2005~2006, there was nothing out that could compete with PS4 or Xbone. Even in 2009~2010, it took expensive, high end GPUs to come close.
By the time PS4 or Xbone actually came out, they were mid-range/low end compared to current market hardware, and were especially overpriced for what they offered, but that's a whole other matter.
Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Features that dont work should be left in?
Do you really think realtime reflections didn't work?
They changed rendering systems. Obviously that system doesnt have the reflections.
How did you determine that the PS 4 was overpriced?I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
tbqh, PS360 were more midrange in 2005/2006. Especially PS3, by the end of 2006, was leaning towards low end for it's graphics card, and had to rely on it's unorthadox CPU architecture to make up for it.
6-8 years behind is rather silly, though. 8 years before 360 launched, Quake 2 wasn't even out. 6 years before PS3 came out, Quake 3 was still fresh. In 2005~2006, there was nothing out that could compete with PS4 or Xbone. Even in 2009~2010, it took expensive, high end GPUs to come close.
By the time PS4 or Xbone actually came out, they were mid-range/low end compared to current market hardware, and were especially overpriced for what they offered, but that's a whole other matter.
Crenlar posted...show hidden quote(s)
Do you really think realtime reflections didn't work?
They changed rendering systems. Obviously that system doesnt have the reflections.
How did you determine that the PS 4 was overpriced?
And how do you propose that they changed the rendering system in a way that would break reflections?
PS4 was overpriced because equivalent PC hardware was cheaper.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
They changed rendering systems. Obviously that system doesnt have the reflections.
How did you determine that the PS 4 was overpriced?
And how do you propose that they changed the rendering system in a way that would break reflections?
PS4 was overpriced because equivalent PC hardware was cheaper.
It would seem the rendering system they chose didnt have it.
Do you have a $400 build from 2013? Performance on todays games with that build? I wont require that its prebuilt even though that would make it an apple to apple comaprison.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.DarkZV2Beta posted...tbqh, PS360 were more midrange in 2005/2006. Especially PS3, by the end of 2006, was leaning towards low end for it's graphics card, and had to rely on it's unorthadox CPU architecture to make up for it.
A 7800GT/Radeon X1800 were "midrange" in 2005/2006? Yeah, if you consider anything under the then-released and expensive 8800 "midrange", sure, for your average gamer those were higher-end cards.Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES(edited 1 week ago)DarkZV2Beta posted...PS4 was overpriced because equivalent PC hardware was cheaper.
I don't know about that - when I got my Factory OC 660 in 2012 it was around $300 for the card alone, and the PS4 APU is roughly equivalent, maybe 670 tier with dev optimization, and you're telling me you could build a machine with those specs for less than $400 in 2013? I think not. Granted, it's not exactly a fair comparison as the PS4 is using a custom, tablet-derived CPU etc. and Sony was getting a volume discount from AMD etc. but even using the cheapest AMD CPU, you'd be at $500+ for an equivalent PC, and due to driver/OS overhead etc. it would perform worse in most ports. But then it has never been smart to get a console-equivalent build.Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES(edited 1 week ago)- Boards
- PC
- Does console graphics look better than PC minus the frame rate performance?
PS3 was meh at its release, but the Xbox 360 in 2005 was quite nice. The early 360 games were generally hurt by the engines' poor multicore support though, and the 512MB total RAM (minus OS footprint) can also be argued as being low to the PCs of the time.
The worst advice from the PC crowd ever was the budget PS4 killer builds with a Pentium G3258 and GTX 750 Ti.
The Pentium can't even run modern games anymore, and while the 750 Ti still is "enough", the last Digitalfoundry comparisons to the original PS4 recommended a GTX 950.Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!JKatarn posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
tbqh, PS360 were more midrange in 2005/2006. Especially PS3, by the end of 2006, was leaning towards low end for it's graphics card, and had to rely on it's unorthadox CPU architecture to make up for it.
A 7800GT/Radeon X1800 were "midrange" in 2005/2006? Yeah, if you consider anything under the then-released and expensive 8800 "midrange", sure, for your average gamer those were higher-end cards.
It wasn't a 7800 or x1800, though. They were halfway between that and the cut down variants of those cards, with the 360 Radeon variant having some architectural improvements lifted from their next generation.
By the time the GTX8000 series filled out, you could get faster cards on the mid-low end.
Crenlar posted...
It would seem the rendering system they chose didnt have it.
Do you have a $400 build from 2013? Performance on todays games with that build? I wont require that its prebuilt even though that would make it an apple to apple comaprison.
It's realtime reflections, not rocket science. One of the most straightforward bruteforce rendering effects there is. Take everything, draw it upside down, map it to a surface. Apply refraction where necessary.
I frequently recommended people towards a 7850/FX8350 build. It typically performs about as well in PS4 software as the console proper does, with some exceptions leaning either way.
Another popular build was i3+750Ti, which hasn't aged as well for console ports, but runs older PC-centric software much better.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudJKatarn posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
PS4 was overpriced because equivalent PC hardware was cheaper.
I don't know about that - when I got my Factory OC 660 in 2012 it was around $300 for the card alone, and the PS4 APU is roughly equivalent, maybe 670 tier with dev optimization, and you're telling me you could build a machine with those specs for less than $400 in 2013? I think not. Granted, it's not exactly a fair comparison as the PS4 is using a custom, tablet-derived CPU etc. and Sony was getting a volume discount from AMD etc. but even using the cheapest AMD CPU, you'd be at $500+ for an equivalent PC, and due to driver/OS overhead etc. it would perform worse in most ports. But then it has never been smart to get a console-equivalent build.
But you could get a 7850 build for cheaper.
Also, $300 for a GTX660 is overpriced. It was a $200 card, and often dropped to $150 and under. 7850 sometimes even hit $100.
Also, 660 was generally closer in performance to 7870, which was out and out faster in every way than PS4. Not slightly, either. Qutie significantly. Nothing so far suggests that PS4's magical "optimization" actually changes that, just that shitty PC ports can sometimes be a bit shite.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud(edited 1 week ago)DarkZV2Beta posted...JKatarn posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
A 7800GT/Radeon X1800 were "midrange" in 2005/2006? Yeah, if you consider anything under the then-released and expensive 8800 "midrange", sure, for your average gamer those were higher-end cards.
It wasn't a 7800 or x1800, though. They were halfway between that and the cut down variants of those cards, with the 360 Radeon variant having some architectural improvements lifted from their next generation.
By the time the GTX8000 series filled out, you could get faster cards on the mid-low end.
Crenlar posted...
It would seem the rendering system they chose didnt have it.
Do you have a $400 build from 2013? Performance on todays games with that build? I wont require that its prebuilt even though that would make it an apple to apple comaprison.
It's realtime reflections, not rocket science. One of the most straightforward bruteforce rendering effects there is. Take everything, draw it upside down, map it to a surface. Apply refraction where necessary.
I frequently recommended people towards a 7850/FX8350 build. It typically performs about as well in PS4 software as the console proper does, with some exceptions leaning either way.
Another popular build was i3+750Ti, which hasn't aged as well for console ports, but runs older PC-centric software much better.
I guess realtime reflections just arent a priority at this point. Most games dont have functioning mirrors let alone gamewide reflections.
This guys build came to $725 http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1804963/amd-8350-cpu-radeon-7850-gaming-ps4-run-bf4.htmlI am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
JKatarn posted...
show hidden quote(s)
It wasn't a 7800 or x1800, though. They were halfway between that and the cut down variants of those cards, with the 360 Radeon variant having some architectural improvements lifted from their next generation.
By the time the GTX8000 series filled out, you could get faster cards on the mid-low end.
Crenlar posted...show hidden quote(s)
It's realtime reflections, not rocket science. One of the most straightforward bruteforce rendering effects there is. Take everything, draw it upside down, map it to a surface. Apply refraction where necessary.
I frequently recommended people towards a 7850/FX8350 build. It typically performs about as well in PS4 software as the console proper does, with some exceptions leaning either way.
Another popular build was i3+750Ti, which hasn't aged as well for console ports, but runs older PC-centric software much better.
I guess realtime reflections just arent a priority at this point. Most games dont have functioning mirrors let alone gamewide reflections.
This guys build came to $725 http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1804963/amd-8350-cpu-radeon-7850-gaming-ps4-run-bf4.html
Whether or not they're a 'priority' isn't really relevant at this point.
Also, well overpaid for that CPU, motherboard, and graphics card. Seriously who the fuck spends $230 on a FX8350 what? Those things were under $200 or not at all. Also, FX6300 held up quite well too, and was often closer to $100.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
I guess realtime reflections just arent a priority at this point. Most games dont have functioning mirrors let alone gamewide reflections.
This guys build came to $725 http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1804963/amd-8350-cpu-radeon-7850-gaming-ps4-run-bf4.html
Whether or not they're a 'priority' isn't really relevant at this point.
Also, well overpaid for that CPU, motherboard, and graphics card. Seriously who the fuck spends $230 on a FX8350 what? Those things were under $200 or not at all. Also, FX6300 held up quite well too, and was often closer to $100.
If realtime reflections are so easy why do most games not even have mirrors? Go into a bathroom in most games and the mirrors are broken. Not sure why you keep on about realtime reflections. Its almost as if you have a problem with me and I dont understand why because I'm a really likeable guy.
That build is well over $400 even with a cpu downgrade. That price doesnt include Windows so thats another $80. Needs a dvd rom to install it so thats another $20.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Because people get upset when they can't run more demanding settings. It was around the time people memed off the original Crysis for not running Very High at 60fps on a toaster strudel that realtime reflections started to fall out of use, and get replaced by downgraded screenspace alternatives.
You don't need a DVD drive for anything, and Windows doesn't cost $80. Most people already have windows anyway, but you can get it on reddit for $20 easy enough, and Linux stillhas a larger library than PS4 ever will.
Like I said, they were $350~400 before tax back when PS4 launched. Like, the few months around that launch window, before and after. That was a long time ago, but that's the price that came up on PCPartPicker, and some people even bought and used these machines.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudThe one thing about comparing PC to console that usually doesn't get mentioned are frametimes.....for whatever reason 30 fps appears smoother on console bc of consistent frame timing and on PC I've found 30fps to always look juttery.MASKOAAA posted...g about comparing PC to console that usually doesn't get mentioned are frametimes.....for whatever reason 30 fps appears smoother on console bc of consistent frame timing and on PC I've found 30fps to always look juttery.
Not really a thing anymore, tbqh. external framerate capping software, or half refresh vsync are perfectly adequate and often better than what you see on consoles.
On consoles, you can't do anything about it. On PC, you can.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Because people get upset when they can't run more demanding settings. It was around the time people memed off the original Crysis for not running Very High at 60fps on a toaster strudel that realtime reflections started to fall out of use, and get replaced by downgraded screenspace alternatives.
You don't need a DVD drive for anything, and Windows doesn't cost $80. Most people already have windows anyway, but you can get it on reddit for $20 easy enough, and Linux still has a larger library than PS4 ever will.
Like I said, they were $350~400 before tax back when PS4 launched. Like, the few months around that launch window, before and after. That was a long time ago, but that's the price that came up on PCPartPicker, and some people even bought and used these machines.
Every game I've played that has working mirrors has them on by default and they cant be turned off. Doom 3 and GTA games for example.
We cant just assume they have windows. Buy a downloadable version on Reddit? Install with a thumb drive? Thats another $20.
Heres a $400 build and it doesnt include windows or any type of drive to install Windows. The cpu doesnt match the PS 4's. https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171158-can-you-build-a-gaming-pc-better-than-the-ps4-for-400I am Crenrel and I approve this message.I can't think of a game where realtime reflections isn't a togglable option. Half Life 2, for example, has 3 different settings. Off, world(static meshes and terrain only), and all(actors included as well).
Assuming they have no thumb drive? Those are cheap enough that it doesn't really matter. And when you consider how low-end the CPU is, that it's all soldered together, volume discounts, ect, it's easy to see that the PS4 was overpriced, and Xbone even more so.
I can't think of any other time when an equivalent gaming tower was even close to the cost of a comparable performance console, much less cheaper.
Also, my build was using a higher quality PSU and case than the ones linked. I remember that part pretty clearly, since it was the very popular at the time CX430.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud(edited 1 week ago)DarkZV2Beta posted...Also, 660 was generally closer in performance to 7870, which was out and out faster in every way than PS4
Yeah, my performance in console ports on said card would beg to differ - playing the Doom demo in particular at lower settings was uneven at best, and the PS4/XB1 versions looked/ran better.Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | EVGA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii-U | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NESJKatarn posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
Also, 660 was generally closer in performance to 7870, which was out and out faster in every way than PS4
Yeah, my performance in console ports on said card would beg to differ - playing the Doom demo in particular at lower settings was uneven at best, and the PS4/XB1 versions looked/ran better.
And probably would have on a 7850 or 7870, as those games scale better to AMD.
On average, when 660 was new, though, it was much closer to 7870 across a variety of existing software than it was to a 7850, and was priced appropriately.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud(edited 1 week ago)DarkZV2Beta posted...I can't think of a game where realtime reflections isn't a togglable option. Half Life 2, for example, has 3 different settings. Off, world(static meshes and terrain only), and all(actors included as well).
Assuming they have no thumb drive? Those are cheap enough that it doesn't really matter. And when you consider how low-end the CPU is, that it's all soldered together, volume discounts, ect, it's easy to see that the PS4 was overpriced, and Xbone even more so.
I can't think of any other time when an equivalent gaming tower was even close to the cost of a comparable performance console, much less cheaper.
Also, my build was using a higher quality PSU and case than the ones linked. I remember that part pretty clearly, since it was the very popular at the time CX430.
You say they took it out yet you dont know if it was ever in the rendering system they ended up using.
Hey a thumb drive is $20 and needs to be factored into the price. Another thing you really need to consider is the time investment. Picking up a PS 4 while grocery shopping vs figuring out what parts to get and putting the thing together.
Sony reportedly lost $60 on each PS 4 while the Xbox One was sold at just about cost. So they werent overpriced. A prebuilt in 2013 with matching specs would have been around $700.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Again, it's realtime reflections, not rocket science. It's not actually a difficult thing. You render the world upside down, and then map it to a surface.
A thumb drive is up to $20. You can definitely get them cheaper. It's not a significant cost.
Just because Sony did a bad job designing the hardware does not mean it wasn't overpriced. Remember, consoles are locked-down, proprietary boxes that can only do what the console provider says you can, and every piece of software you buy for it had to pay a handout to said console provider just to legally ship a product. They are a subsidized product, and PS4/Xbone were both overpriced.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloud(edited 6 days ago)DarkZV2Beta posted...Again, it's realtime reflections, not rocket science. It's not actually a difficult thing. You render the world upside down, and then map it to a surface.
A thumb drive is up to $20. You can definitely get them cheaper. It's not a significant cost.
Just because Sony did a bad job designing the hardware does not mean it wasn't overpriced. Remember, consoles are locked-down, proprietary boxes that can only do what the console provider says you can, and every piece of software you buy for it had to pay a handout to said console provider just to legally ship a product. They are a subsidized product, and PS4/Xbone were both overpriced.
We still dont know ether they took it out or not. I dont recall some big outcry over not having the option. Did Witcher 2 have it?
Sony did a bad job? How did you determine that? If prebuilt pc's with matching specs in 2013 were even remotely close to the PS 4's price then you might have a point.
And because theyre locked down you see substantially less cheaters on console.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.tbqh, idk I don't play the witcher games. They had it and a bunch of other features working in prototype builds, though, and removed those from the final game despite being very straightforward. The why is obvious; people whine when they can't run a game on max settings. It's a negative mentality, and doesn't fit with the PC platform.
If you can build a tower faster than a console, even just the hardware, for less than a console, the console is overpriced. If they aren't making a profit in spite of that, they did a shitty job designing it. Period. Also, there's all the other oddities, like using USB for the HDD but SATA for the disc drive, or how there's a hardware off by 2 error corrected in the APIs used, or how the security doesn't actually work at all because lolsony. But, that's not really relevant, since failing to break even on the hardware, when you could literally buy off the shelf parts to do that better, means they fucked up already.
How many cheaters there are isn't really relevant.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...tbqh, idk I don't play the witcher games. They had it and a bunch of other features working in prototype builds, though, and removed those from the final game despite being very straightforward. The why is obvious; people whine when they can't run a game on max settings. It's a negative mentality, and doesn't fit with the PC platform.
If you can build a tower faster than a console, even just the hardware, for less than a console, the console is overpriced. If they aren't making a profit in spite of that, they did a shitty job designing it. Period. Also, there's all the other oddities, like using USB for the HDD but SATA for the disc drive, or how there's a hardware off by 2 error corrected in the APIs used, or how the security doesn't actually work at all because lolsony. But, that's not really relevant, since failing to break even on the hardware, when you could literally buy off the shelf parts to do that better, means they fucked up already.
How many cheaters there are isn't really relevant.
They didnt remove it they changed rendering systems.
Until you can find a similarly specced prebuilt from 2103 thats cheaper then you have nothing to go on. I've yet to see a list of off the shelf parts that match the PS 4 for a better price. How overpriced is the PS 4? $50, $100.
If you want to bring up the fact that consoles are locked down then citing a positive outcome of that is totally relevant.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.You still haven't explained what you think that means.
I've explained adequately how the PS4 is overpriced. If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem. It's not my job to jump through your arbitrary hoops.
That consoles are locked down is factored into the value of the product. Whether you like it or not is not.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...You still haven't explained what you think that means.
I've explained adequately how the PS4 is overpriced. If you don't want to accept that, that's your problem. It's not my job to jump through your arbitrary hoops.
That consoles are locked down is factored into the value of the product. Whether you like it or not is not.
Why dont you explain it to me.
Youve produced nothing to backup the overpriced claim.
You bring up the locked down aspect because you dont like itI am Crenrel and I approve this message.How can I explain what you think something means?
I've produced plenty, unlike you.
Because it devalues a product.
Lastly, who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...How can I explain what you think something means?
I've produced plenty, unlike you.
Because it devalues a product.
Lastly, who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
Tell me what you think it means.
I linked builds from 2013.
One mans trash is anothers treasure.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
How can I explain what you think something means?
I've produced plenty, unlike you.
Because it devalues a product.
Lastly, who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
Tell me what you think it means.
I linked builds from 2013.
One mans trash is anothers treasure.who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Tell me what you think it means.
I linked builds from 2013.
One mans trash is anothers treasure.who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
You made the overpriced claim yet didnt back it up. I linked two builds,I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
Crenlar posted...
show hidden quote(s)
show hidden quote(s)
You made the overpriced claim yet didnt back it up. I linked two builds,
I cited my builds and prices at the time. You made arbitrary conditions.who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
You made the overpriced claim yet didnt back it up. I linked two builds,
I cited my builds and prices at the time. You made arbitrary conditions.who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
Wanna make a claim? Well you gotta back it up.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
Crenlar posted...
show hidden quote(s)
I cited my builds and prices at the time. You made arbitrary conditions.show hidden quote(s)
Wanna make a claim? Well you gotta back it up.
I did. You didn't.who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudFor sure not, console graphics are medium to high at most, depending on how everything is tuned. farclips and lods are the most evident improvements in PC for any game ported. Texture sizes were also easy to see different, but today are more or less the same. On the other hand, just for seeing it more clearly, with RTX obviously consoles are behind until the next gen. There is always some tech that you could improve in your PC the day it comes out that you will need to wait for consoles. And you may spend $2000+ to play in real 4k, that is something consoles are not going to do, probably even they still won't next gen if they want to stay in a competitive hardware cost. You can always spend stupid amounts of money to put graphics even higher or mod them.
But overall for no more than $700, I would say $600, at any time you may set up a rig that is up to date for a couple of years, or exactly pairs with a recent console release. That rig may be updated every couple of years with $300 at most, and will be up to date again, even a little better, even more if you like to be informed about the industry and you search for the finest hardware at the right time.
I spent 15 years ago $1000 in my rig, and saved ever since then just $100/year for every software and hardware improvements and eventualities, like my gtx 9800 burned out the 2nd year, or my hdd broken the 9th, and almost 4 years ago I upgraded to ddr4 with all the mess that is, and i never was under console quality.Bu!(edited 6 days ago)I guess darkbeta couldn't find any data to back up his overpriced claimI am Crenrel and I approve this message.YEs.. console graphics are better even though if the perfect emulator for the ps4 was released the same games would look technically better on a pc..... Your 100% right though tc... Why the fuck do these topics get so many posts?Combo MasterCombo Master posted...YEs.. console graphics are better even though if the perfect emulator for the ps4 was released the same games would look technically better on a pc..... Your 100% right though tc... Why the fuck do these topics get so many posts?
Because posters like yourself cannot read.the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gapsCrenlar posted...I guess darkbeta couldn't find any data to back up his overpriced claim
who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
I guess darkbeta couldn't find any data to back up his overpriced claim
who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
So you think the PS 4 was overpriced? Now back that up with some cold hard facts.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
Crenlar posted...
show hidden quote(s)
show hidden quote(s)
So you think the PS 4 was overpriced? Now back that up with some cold hard facts.
I didwho are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
DarkZV2Beta posted...
show hidden quote(s)
So you think the PS 4 was overpriced? Now back that up with some cold hard facts.
I didwho are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
Where?I am Crenrel and I approve this message.PC will always be better than console in terms of graphics/performance.
There are no ifs, ands, or butts about it.
To think otherwise, means you are ignorant or a troll.
On a side note, it's not a fair comparison to compare games that the PC doesn't have since there is nothing to compare.
If you take the same game (i.e. God of War) and you make it available for both PC and console, then PC will always come out on top.
/topic.@GameFAQs moderators https://youtu.be/PeihcfYft9w
Is Fortnite for kids? Let's check https://imgtc.com/i/8eGRB2s.pngEpicKingdom_ posted...PC will always be better than console in terms of graphics/performance.
There are no ifs, ands, or butts about it.
To think otherwise, means you are ignorant or a troll.
On a side note, it's not a fair comparison to compare games that the PC doesn't have since there is nothing to compare.
If you take the same game (i.e. God of War) and you make it available for both PC and console, then PC will always come out on top.
/topic.
My point is, God of War and other console exclusives are not on the pc. Those multplatform games look and run better on pc any day. However, were games like God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn(console exclusives) out on PC, they'd be the best graphics to date since PC has way more power than consoles.
Get it now?the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gapsKINDERFELD posted...However, were games like God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn(console exclusives) out on PC, they'd be the best graphics to date since PC has way more power than consoles.
Good, sounds like you agree with my post.@GameFAQs moderators https://youtu.be/PeihcfYft9w
Is Fortnite for kids? Let's check https://imgtc.com/i/8eGRB2s.pngEpicKingdom_ posted...KINDERFELD posted...
However, were games like God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn(console exclusives) out on PC, they'd be the best graphics to date since PC has way more power than consoles.
Good, sounds like you agree with my post.
My point is console exclusives are pushing way more moder graphics and techniques but cannot run them at higher resolutions and frame rates.
Name one pc exclusive that would look better than God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn if they were on pc and you could further mod their graphics?the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gaps(edited 6 days ago)Think about it like 2 women putting on makeup.
First woman(PC exclusive/multplatform), without makeup looks average however when she puts on makeup(graphical bells and whistles that pc offers), she looks like a 10/10.
Second woman(PS4 exclusive) is an 8/10 without makeup but with the limitations of console bells and whistles becomes a 9/10.
If she had the makeup kit of the pc, she'd be a 15/10.the polyfilla way look strong in the weakness of the gapsCrenlar posted...who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
who are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
Show me the dataI am Crenrel and I approve this message.Crenlar posted...DarkZV2Beta posted...
Crenlar posted...
show hidden quote(s)
show hidden quote(s)
Show me the datawho are you trying to fool? You've provided nothing and demanded everything. 6/10, imo do something more theatrical.
a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudFor the price you can get a PS4 or Xbone at, for sure they have better graphics. You cant build a PC for $400 that would look this good.
I have the standard PS4 they released first, and I have to admit, a lot of their games do look nice. When you consider the amount of money you pay. Especially considering now, with base edition consoles running for as low as $200. (I bought mine a year ago, and I havent paid any attention to prices)
But, Red Dead Redemption first person mode reminds me of Fallout New Vegas maxed out graphics settings. Lmfao. One of the revolvers looks like the .357 Magnum you find on Fallout New Vegas, with a bit more polish.
A lot of really beautiful console games have all these detailed beautiful environments, but then you notice parts of the game where they had to sacrifice the detail for optimization. Then you never stop noticing it.EVGA GTX 970 SC | i5-6600k | Corsair 8 x 2 DDR4 | ASUS Z170A | NZXT Phantom 410Critcal50 posted...For the price you can get a PS4 or Xbone at, for sure they have better graphics. You cant build a PC for $400 that would look this good.
I have the standard PS4 they released first, and I have to admit, a lot of their games do look nice. When you consider the amount of money you pay. Especially considering now, with base edition consoles running for as low as $200. (I bought mine a year ago, and I havent paid any attention to prices)
Theyre underpriced imhoI am Crenrel and I approve this message.KINDERFELD posted...OUberLord posted...
In short; no.
It really depends on the hardware. Older PC hardware isn't as good as modern console hardware is, but generally speaking PC hardware is almost always a step (or a few steps...) ahead of consoles.
RDR2 looks good, but the original Xbox One can only run it at 864p and 30fps. The Xbox One X can run it at a 4K native resolution, but still only at 30fps. Other games on that console also tend to be locked to 30fps at that resolution as well.
Meanwhile, on the PC (and admittedly on different engines and games) you can run games at higher framerates at that same resolution and the same (or better) graphics settings. Take Forza Horizon 4 for example; you can run it at 4K 30fps on the Xbox One X, but just about any PC graphics card made in the last 4 years can do that or far greater: https://www.techspot.com/review/1716-forza-horizon-4-gpu-benchmarks/
However, Red Dead Redemption 2, God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 still look miles better than Forza Horizon 4. The only thing that game and near all PC games have over them is higher frame rates that are stable and better resolution.
If its a PC exclusive game, 9 out of 10 times it looks like Pillars of Eternity.
Based casual tcPC | PS4 | Vita | PS3 | PSP | PS2 | PS1 | NS | Wii U | New 3DS | Wii | DS lite | GCN + GBP | GBA SP | GBA | GBC | SNES | GB | NES | 360Crenlar posted...Critcal50 posted...
For the price you can get a PS4 or Xbone at, for sure they have better graphics. You cant build a PC for $400 that would look this good.
I have the standard PS4 they released first, and I have to admit, a lot of their games do look nice. When you consider the amount of money you pay. Especially considering now, with base edition consoles running for as low as $200. (I bought mine a year ago, and I havent paid any attention to prices)
Theyre underpriced imho
Consoles have been overpriced ever since mid-gen ps360. PS2 or GameCube would be $100, bundled with games this far in.a quad core i7 was just a rebranded celeron -Pengu1n
Anything that has 3p fps or better is fine with me -mucloudDarkZV2Beta posted...Crenlar posted...
Critcal50 posted...
show hidden quote(s)
Theyre underpriced imho
Consoles have been overpriced ever since mid-gen ps360. PS2 or GameCube would be $100, bundled with games this far in.
Even more underpriced than todays consoles.
All you have to do to prove theyre overpriced is to find a prebuilt pc with matching power at a lower price.I am Crenrel and I approve this message.Depends on your computer if your trying to run a modern game with 8 year old computer equipment then if course the console will look better if your comparing it to the top of the line console vs a top of the line PC then PC wins easilyZ370 K6 | i7 8700 4.7ghz | GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | EVGA GS 750w | 24GB DDR4 3300mhz Dual Active | 4TB HDD |1TB SSD
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/user/archive
No comments:
Post a Comment