..... What happened to "Can we please stop arguing"? Oh well, guess I might as well come back for round 1.x....
Originally Posted by DatPhoria
I can agroup PC gamers into 2 main groups:Group A:
PC gamers who play LoL, Wow, Minecraft and games like that.Group B:
PC gamers that will ONLY play a game if it looks superb (very crisp HD textures is a must). Read comment #104 to see what I mean.
Oh wow. So apparently you can't appreciate both at the same time. Amazing. I must be an entirely 2d person. Awesome. I guess I better uninstall HALF my game library; I mean look at the horrible graphics in these games:
Far Cry 1, Half Life (1, 2, etc.), FEAR, Titan Quest, KOTOR1&2, Fall Out 1, Dead Space 1 (possibly 2 and 3 as well!), Just Cause 1, Dark Siders, CoH1, DoW:40k, AI War (LOOk AT IT!), RIse of Nations, Star Craft 1, Age of Empires 1 & 2, Age of Mythology, Empire Earth, Total Annihilation, FTL, Dungeon Keeper 1, Counter Strike: Sources, DoD:S, CoD4, Star Wars: Battlefront 1&2, Unreal Tournament 2004, Need for Speed: Underground, Silent Hunter 3, Duke Nukem 3D, and Hotline Miami.
No, I must hate all those games; I mean, they look awful compared to The Witcher 3 and Crysis 3. Wait, what? I don't hate those games? In fact, some of them are my favorite games? But how is this possible? I must definitely be in your "group 2", since I ripped on TLOU and Watch Dog's graphics. Well, I guess not. Turns out I like gameplay; a lot. However, years of experience (both paid and hobby) have left me with enough experience and knowledge about game development to know that pretty much any game out there that is "console first" in terms of graphics is just holding out on the user base.
A game artist wants his/her art to look at the best. A GOOD artist never stops and says "meh, good enough". They'll do the absolute best they can; tons of lights, shadows, crisp textures, etc. The problem is, the tech team steps in and says "no, you can't have that". Either the stupid forward rendering engine (TLOU) can't handle more than 3 shadow-casting light sources, or the GPU can't handle enough polygons, or the CPU can't crunch that much physics. Basically, the art team wants fancy graphics, and the tech team can't make it possible because they're so focused on making an SKU that works on console. They could easily just use the super HD textures on PC, or maybe enable some physics that they already developed (WD's coat physics). But instead, marketing or whatever, realizes that a gap as astronomically huge as the gap between console and PC would probably hurt sales; and as such, the PC version gets nerfed.
The Witcher 3 looks so incredibly good (seriously
) BECAUSE they focused on PC. And guess what? Just because the ART team focused on ART, doesn't mean the GAMEPLAY team got any less time to work on the game! Wow! Amazing!
The other thing is, that even if you're enjoying the game, anyone paying attention can notice bad graphics. I, personally, have a pretty good eye for detail. I'll usually catch things in a second of video that other people won't really notice in a still; poorly clipping shadows, blurry textures, etc. It comes with experience. When I make a thing, I'll test it multiple times. After a while, you start noticing tiny things: "Is that lamp I made good enough?". No one else is going to pay attention to the lamp, but as the artist; you will. You then start applying your own standards to other's works (as anyone should), and you start noticing the absolute trash people try to push off as "good".
Wrong. That's why I hate PC gamers. You people think you are superior for having "way better" visuals, when you don't realize you're paying like 5 times the price of a console to achieve all that, and sometimes those visuals you get are very inconclusive. You don't realize consoles were designed for gaming, PC's weren't. PC's are multi-purpose devices capable of deliver gaming experiences, that's it. I'm right now a console gamer, and I have a GTX590, so if I want I can achieve better graphics if I play a multi-platform game on my PC. I'm not an arrogant.
Some of us don't care. I want amazing graphics, and fluid FPS in some great games. To do that, I built a pretty decent desktop, and then bought TWO 144hz screens for it, because I like matching stuff, and because I like extra screen space. That's $600+ on screens. Alone. I could have bought a PS4, or an Xbox1 and some games for the same price; but I didn't. Console games look like trash compared to native 1080p@144fps. Seriously, just in the number of pixels, I'm pushing more than TEN TIMES more than most Xbox One titles, and 7x more than a PS4. And while I'm pushing those insane number of pixels, I'm also enjoying far higher resolution textures (sadly, my 570's only have 1.2gb vram), higher quality meshes, better view distances, better shading, etc.
Did I pay way more than I would have for a console? Well. Maybe. I don't have a TV - just a desktop (Netflix > TV, anyway). As a result, I don't pay for a TV sub or a monthly PS/X0 sub. A good TV these days (40"+ or something) probably runs around $1200-1500. So, let's say that the TV cancels out my screens, headset, keyboard and mouse (PC350, DK3009, Razer Deathadder). Well, my desktop was slightly under $2000 new, and I added a few bits here and there afterwards (Extra HDD's, etc.). So yea, I probably paid $1500 more for my tower than I would have for a console.
Do I mind? No. My desktop lets me post here, read stuff, watch TV, do work, hobby stuff (animation, game stuff), video editing, photoshop, etc. The list goes on. All while giving me FAR better graphics and frame rate.
Graphics matter and a lot. But you PC gamers take it to a whole new level of importance. And that's why you sometimes don't get all the games. Why would a gaming developing company release a game on PC if you are not going to play it unless it looks amazing, astonishing, with the best looking textures ever made? You will always be unsatisfied with the result, since you think that they can look better. All this ends up being paradoxical because you say that console gamers can't have good graphics, and then you complain because you think PC games can look better. And do you know why is that? That's because you use the consoles as your point of reference and it's very clear that the difference in hardware between a high end PC is waay superior than the difference in graphics between them. See how it makes sense?
Yes, graphics do matter a lot to someone who works mostly with graphics. As for PC not getting a lot of games, that's not only because of poor graphics. Certain types of game just don't do well on PC; just look at CoD. Other games just weren't going to be on PC ever, because the publishers are holding them hostage on a specific platform (TLOU, GoW, Halo, etc.). But you can flip it, too. Some of the biggest games ever made are PC only; World of Warcraft, Star Craft 2, League of Legends, DayZ - the ENTIRE RTS and MMORPG genre (pretty much). On top of that, a LOT of games are just far better on PC: Counter Strike, Half Life, Crysis, Far Cry, Skyrim, etc.
This game (watchdogs) is undeniably good looking. And that's just by the looks of a highly compressed YouTube video. I can't imagine how it would look real time. It may have been downgraded, but what can you do about it? The game looks georgouse, period. Stop whimpering about it, geez!
The thing is, it's not. Artistically, WatchDogs is going for a 'realistic' style; they're trying to make their game look as close to real as possible. As such, you can easily compare it to other games trying to do the same thing... and a lot games that have been out for a while now look better: Crysis 3, Metro: LL, even Crysis 2 looks better. ARMA 3 has better lighting, that's for sure. It looks worse than GTA4 with mods - that's the sad part; a professional team working for YEARS couldn't beat a few guys doing some work as a hobby and releasing their work for free.
As for what I can do about it? Well, the E3 2012 demo was 'real time'; we know that. It wasn't some off-site, pre-rendered thing made in 3DS. It was an interactive thing running in a game engine. So, I assume those shaders, textures, etc. and stuff still exist, so basically, until they release those assets (or make better ones), I'll just not buy the game. I'm tired of being lied to because the "next gen" consoles are so horrible; they show us one thing (that looks amazing), and then show us something else, because it wasn't going to be able to run on the target platform. If your game is going to look average, just show that. Don't set the bar high, then go far under it.