Originally Posted by pale_neon
I know you're ultra-reply was to a bunch of ppl and I'm gunna mainly just concentrate on ur reply to me but, also gotta throw in a couple other stuff re: replies to some other ppl.
I disagree. It does change it. The textures while not much better are better in that DS2 comparo u showed. Some1 else mentioned you could read the name badge on the PC for instance. Part of how a game looks is also how it moves. If it has a silky smooth frame rate that looks more natural & better than if it's struggling or has chugging during action. There are also draw distance, lighting, AA/AF & resolution. These are all improvements even if the textures are exactly the same.
There are no draw distance or lighting improvements in DS2. The shadows are ~somewhat improved due to AA but even that is a stretch if you look at alot of the screenshots. The quality seems to vary from scene to scene.
I'm glad you're at least acknowledging that it matters & does make it look better. You just have a difference of opinion on how much better, which I can respect even if i disagree with it.
Yes, there are games that could look a lot better on PC, but the developers didn't put the effort into it for one reason or another. My guess, budget. Publisher says we expect to sell this many on console, put effort in that. Not all games are like that though.
But the problem is that most of this has nothing to do with budget. 30 more minutes to recompress 3 different cutscenes shouldnt cut into budget.
Perhaps taking the time out to make sure higher quality textures would - but that's the problem. When people make a big deal out of AA and resolution, then devs dont think textures matter. When they do. I only concentrate on textures because they're the easiest things to point out. You also have shaders, graphical effects (resolutions and their sizes), draw distances, animation complexities, and so on.
Yes, again it's a problem with the industry. Maybe you're right & PC gamers should be more vocal about expecting more from their games; but like you said they're not ugly games for the most part. & it's not all PC games which that happens to, just some. For instance, Fable 3 was announced for PC recently; sure it's coming out way after the 360 version but I'm just happy it's coming out. Because if it didn't come to PC i probably never would buy it. If it's a horrible port though I just won't buy it; it's not like there's a shortage of PC games this year. I vote with my wallet.
Sure, they're not ugly. And we should appreciate that they're even on PC for PC gamers to even experience. I HIGHLY agree. You have no idea because I hate it when PC gamers complain about the tinniest things when they're forgetting they can even play such great games on the PC.
But when I see threads like this where people have to bring up how games on the PC have better AA and resolution, and they act as if it makes the games look totally different - thats when I have to throw my posts at them or even if they're not posting that but the thread is heading that way: it needs to be said in my opinion. Having better AA and resolution is standard. It comes with the PC territory and it's nothing to brag about.
Dragon Age 2
Assasin's Creed: Brotherhood
Duke Nukem Forever
The Witcher 2
Dungeon Siege III
Hunted: Demon's Forge
Red Faction: Armageddon
Alice: Madness Returns
MAX PAYNE 3
Spec Ops: The Line
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
Ghost Recon Future Soldier
Aliens: Colonial Marines
Batman: Arkham City
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Mass Effect 3
Deus Ex Human Revolution
Guild Wars 2
Warhammer 40k: Space Marine
There are a good number of PC games coming out, especially ones that look amazing. I never really denied this. But no one is to say how they pair up to their console (if applicable) counterparts.
No1's saying it looks a million times better. Just better. Which it does, always; even on the games which are bad ports. On games which get good PC treatment you get more visual effects, better textures, better frame rate, better draw distance, higher resolution, more geometric & texture filtering, etc... Which add up to a much better looking game. How you can have better level design I'm not sure what you're refing, if it's the same game it should have the same levels.
Well - I meant singleplayer and multiplayer wise and things like that by level design. Sometimes games, like Crysis 2 for example, seem to be developed with the console limitations in mind and not with the capabilities of the PC also in mind.
And trust me, there are people that will and have gloated about games like ME2 being a fantastic PC game graphically and it proves that consoles suck blah blah blah when there is nothing to brag about. They act like it's a million times better and believe it too.
I agree 100% with this. BINK is a cancer on video game video, no idea why they still use it. KZ3 even uses it, when sony's own h.264 would have been free & looked a lot better. Makes no sense.
Bingo. Although, KZ3 does a better job at doing it then ME2 thats for sure. Then again, they only used like 40GB of space. The hell?
But I would argue that it does change the way the game looks. It makes it look sharper, no upscaling. So the mipmaps aren't all super high resolution in the game you happen to be singling out; some are higher. Look at this screenshot. Arm is ugly sure, but look at the gun. Look at the smoothness of the head, no jaggies. Look at the sharpness of the buildings in the background.
And this one, look at the rock textures. doesn't look all super horrible
It makes them less blurry because there's no image buffer scaling. Sure the game is scaling them, but that looks a lot better than having a frame buffer scaled.
But the same textures as the rock ones you're showing can be found on the consoles in the exact same quality. That's my point. And those tattoos on the her arm is exactly the kind of problem I mean when we talk about low resolution textures and having a higher resolution being rendered. They look pretty darn blurry/pixely compared to everything else.
Im also pretty sure if I went onto my 360, and went to that same point in the game - I'd be able to see those same buildings in the background with the same quality as everything else in the game is. Minus the jagged edges which we've covered.
I cant comment on the DLC pictures as I've never played it on any platform but this picture in particular:
Looks strikingly similar to the same clarity you can find on the 360, sans AA. And even then, without as much AA, it isn't TOO bad as compared to having none at all.
Not quire sure what's trying to be shown here.
BC2 has some extra cool effects on the PC though, especially the radiosity SSAO or w/e it's called. My point was that the textures for example are the same as the 360. In fact, even the AA method deployed is the same where it gives a fence effect on the edges of models especially trees.
Open world games are the single, utmost, and biggest exception to where PC gaming will always come out on top and is a big deal. There is a reason why none of this has been mentioned before, especially in a Killzone 3 thread none the less.
Without the proper RAM - Fallout nor GTA can even be remotely compared to the consoles. It's just no argument to be had. That, and the fact that Fallout in particular is poorly designed on the consoles as well. If EA's Assasin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood can be pulled off on the 360, and ESPECIALLY the PS3 where it looks super close to 360 even though it has less reading speeds on the drive and less RAM, then why can't Fallout? I dont even want to delve into the multiple problems I have with Fallout even being talked about. GTA4 is truly a game that can only be played on the PC, yet alone any open world game.
Never played so I cant comment really.
Although, I highly recommend playing some GT5 to compare with those. And I dont mean the crappy block model cars in the beginning of the game
Played it on the PC but not consoles, but judging from the Eurogamer comparison and what I recall - the only problem with this game on the consoles is the draw distance on the 360. The PS3 has less or lower textures too, which is understandable considering it has even less RAM and read speeds again.
I wouldn't know that game either.
Well, the guys at Digital Foundry disagree with you and they're pretty knowledgeable on console tech (RSX/Cell Xenos/Xenon ups & downs/tech tradeoffs & capabilities). Very active over at Beyond3D as well. I agree halo wasn't exactly super impressive, but from my understanding the reason is because they made the game for draw distance, frame rate, & HDR lighting. The console can only do so much because of the eDRAM size limitation, no matter how fast the eDRAM is. & yes BC2 does look great; DICE is great. BF3 will look good im sure as well, but it will look light years better on PC as well as have 64 player and dedicated servers (P2P is garbage).
I'm a fan of both DF and Beyond3D incase you havent read most of my news posts around here on OCN. I dont actually post on either but Im big big readers of both.
But DF doesnt disagree with me on alot of stuff, particularly the fact that games like DS2 aren't anything too spectacular port wise. Even the BC2 comparison, they said PC looked better but they questioned alot of the porting especially the AA hex fence effect on the 360 and PC but not PS3.
I don't understand how you can think KZ3 looks "miles ahead" of BO on console but say that PC versions of console games look almost the same.
I never said the PC version of BO looks the same. It's infinitely better in almost every regard. BUT my problem with it is that it's graphically poor on the consoles when there are so many other games that have so much more going for it.
the diff between PC versions and console versions are, for the most part, WAY LARGER than KZ3 & BO on console. See my previous links for proof. KZ3 looks good for the PS3, there's no denying that. But again, consoles are limited by their tech & that's why I initially said people bickering over it are like bums fighting over whats better jack daniels or jim beam, while i'm sipping on Johnny Walker blue label. Not to sound like an elitist dick or anything lol
You NEVER get anything as amazing as this in Black Ops on both PC and consoles.
That's not the only scene in KZ3 that looks mind blowingly good either, especially when you have it in a single screenshot rather than in motion. I saw alot of scenes in that game in my straight 8-9 hours of gameplay that made me go "Woah - they did that while I'm actually playing in a non-cutscene?"
Quite alot of destruction physics in the game as well you'd be surprised. Sadly, most of BO is completely and utterly static and boring graphics wise. Literally throughout the game - you get nothing new or amazing. The only part of BO that was graphically impressive was the ending of it with all the water. The reflections of the water were pretty darn awesome look when running through the stage (even though the water doesn't react to anything even slightly). But even that brings the FPS down to like less then 20 on the 360 when it shouldn't. Designed right, like Uncharted 2 for example with even better water, it wouldn't have done that at all.
The reason is because of the console's hardware limitations. If it were 30FPS it wouldnt be the same game. the whole point is the higher frame rate, the multiplayer in CoD doesnt work otherwise. It's twitch gaming (if you can even call it that w/ a control pad *shrug*).
Hm - I dont think CoD at 30FPS would make a difference in the slightest to be honest. There are plenty of twitch games, Killzone 2 and 3 even has some twitchiness to them if you play mostly guerilla deathmatch. I never really thought of CoD though like that and how it might change till you brought it up like that. Maybe, but I personally doubt it. No one sits there and says - oh it's 3 frames to shoot like it is to punch in say Street Fighter.