Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [CVG]Killzone 3 doesn't max out PS3 - Guerrilla
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[CVG]Killzone 3 doesn't max out PS3 - Guerrilla - Page 12

post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecchi-BANZAII!!! View Post
Bottom line:
Games made to work for Console have lower texture resolution all from the beginning.
Resolution will only remove jaggies but the textures are still low/mid-end graphic wise.

The only way to fix this is to mod the game (Like Oblivion for instance).
that is a generalization. and wrong for the most part. some games for PC the textures aren't better. most games they are, and by a lot. see the numerous examples here http://www.overclock.net/video-game-...l#post12518283
Edited by pale_neon - 2/25/11 at 5:26am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #112 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpwnmebro View Post
i wish pc my pc ran flawlessly but it so happens that it goes through many, many problems.
I know. Its the main reason why I havent bothered with any games on the PC the past year or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pale_neon View Post
I wasn't referring to DS2. The only thing i was reffing in DS2 was that some1 pointed out you could actually read the nametag on PC, but console was all blurred. The rest of everything i said was applying to PC games in general.
Ah ok.
Looking at the name tag, which I never noticed before, it is slightly blurred on the 360 indeed. Though, not illegible at all.

Quote:
It could have to do with the game's engine for all we know. Which would have a lot to do w/ the budget, they're not going to redesign the game's engine. Streaming in textures is the big thing on consoles because of their amazingly crappy amount of RAM. Also using cut scenes to load the next level of games is also becoming common, maybe that's why they use BINK because it uses less CPU cycles & they want those cycles to load whatever in the background. I'm not sure, but it's possible.
But cutscenes in ME2 was never really about loading up the next level. In fact, those cutscenes were smack in the middle of gameplay.
And, as for textures, I meant them on the PC not the console. You dont need to redesign a game engine to increase texture resolution unless limitations (which only the consoles really there are). In fact, Fallout 3 and New Vegas which makes NO SENSE whatsoever has higher resolution textures on the PS3.

Quote:
It does look totally different for a lot of games. Night & day different. Remember how you were just complaining that you didn't think BO looked good enough on console? Well, it looks better than most console games. See my point?

BO looks pretty crappy, and doesnt look better than most console games at all. That's my point.

Quote:
You seem to be focusing on a couple PC games which got bad ports from console and the couple console games which were designed exceptionally for the hardware. It appears as if you're attempting to skew & not being objective.

Try looking at all games that come to console & PC. I listed a bunch of examples & you seem to be trying to make excuses, like it's because it's open world or some such. As if it's irrelevant because it doesn't fit into your argument.
Im not trying to make excuses. You're kidding right? I CLEARLY said that open world games are the one exception that truly cant be played on consoles. They just simply can't. That's not an excuse at all, Im agreeing with you.
Although, there is no reason for some of them like Fallout to perform so damn poorly when games like Assasin's Creed run pretty darn well.

Quote:
For the most part, they always look better. It's pretty much the rule, again my point. Just because you have found a couple which have some stickling points doesn't change the fact.
Not really - no. And when you say better, ok sure: they all have better AA and native resolution. But for the most part the majority of games on PC also on console generally don't have much beyond that worth mentioning.

Quote:
Crysis 2 isn't even out yet. What are you on about?
And?
You can watch trailers, gameplay previews, play the demo, AND alot of people already have the game. From all of that - it's clear that Crysis 2 is designed with consoles in mind. It's a pretty straightforward game in a MUCH more enclosed space than the island in Crysis 1. Massive difference, and it looks pretty much like the difference that consoles implied.

[qupte]
Well, again that's beside the point. If you're trying to use that as some justification as to why you decided to make ME2 your focus; disregarding other games which clearly look much better on PC that's a pretty convenient reason.[/quote]

Not at all - you know what, you're catching an attitude if Im reading correctly. I've had similar arguements about ME2 over the past month about 10 times over on this forum alone, and even more beyond that. So don't tell me what I am "trying to use as some justification". A TON of people, even you before you posted, believe that ME2 is a "fantastic example of how PC games are SO much better". Please.

Quote:
1) no the textures wont be the same (even if they're exactly the same files), if you're looking at a 1080p TV because the upscaling will blur them slightly, always. & 2) you wouldnt get as smooth geometry on 360 because it simply cant draw that many pixels.
Then give me a reason why screenshots of the 360 version pretty much match PC versions of the game? TV upscaling aside which not everyone has enabled, I generally have most of my games that I have control over always force 720p no matter what TV Im using. Also - you act as if the upscaling of the TV is terrible, and thats not true at all. TVs, and sometimes the game consoles themselves, do a terrific job at upscaling and dont blur it as much as you make it out to be. You're exaggerating the effect as if it makes it so you can't see anything lol You're just wrong.

Quote:
if you were to display that exact image on ur 1080p TV w/ the 360 for example, fine detail like the stitching on the headset probably wouldn't even show up because of the blur introduced by the scaling. You keep concentrating on the ugly unproportional textures like their arm tattoos & ignoring the textures which look sharper because they're not stretched over such a large area. Whatever, i'm giving up on the ME2 argument anyway; the more attention I give it the more you feel free to argue it's the rule and not the exception.
Oh - so disregard the ugly unproportional textures which is EXACTLY what Im talking about. Im the one with excuses? OK.

Quote:
What's being shown is clarity of the image. Look at it, it's sharp, smooth, clear, refreshing to the eyes. compare it, yes BC2 looks good for a console game. But that doesn't mean it looks the same as on PC. Keep in mind also that when the image gets scaled for the console it will blur it, so it will look worse than the 1:1 that you're looking at on your monitor right now, whereas the PC version will look just as sharp & clear.



Still don't quite see what you're trying to compare with completely different screenshots of completely different scenes of completely different objects with completely different weapons in hand. Clarity? The console version is pretty damn clear to me. The objects far off are so differnent you can't compare them to the ones you have. The buildings in your second screenshots are completely different from the ones in the third one so the whole "clarity" argument is shot because you can't seem to differentiate between the levels. The first picture one doesn't even have anything in view to begin with!

Quote:
Because it doesn't have to do w/ ME2 textures & that's all you seem to care about? lol i kid i kid. But, saying that open world games are the "exception" as if other games are the rule is ridonkulous. It's just part of the rule in general.
I'm telling you I more or less agree. But it's the one thing that honestly is completely different in a discussion in a Killzone 3 thread yet alone ones that have primarily focused on games like Mass Effect. Why the hell would you bring GTA?

Quote:
Look. Here's BulletStorm. It's not an open world game.
PC
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/...letstorm-5.jpg
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/...letstorm-1.jpg
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/...letstorm-3.jpg

I can't find any actual screengrabs from console just bs promo shots, but I think it's safe to say it's not going to be able to match it no matter how good it's optimized.
I guess speculation is nice too - lets throw that into the mix on the conversation lol

Quote:
I've had GT5 since launch day. & I bought the Driving Force wheel when it came out a year before that. But I havent even taken the game out of the shrinkwrap yet. It's kinda depressing to think about. That's how disinterested I've become.
Ok?

Quote:
you say Open world almost dismissively, as if it made the example irrelevant. So many games are open world now, most of them are. The only thing I can think of that's not are sports, racing & fps. But even FPS is open world to some extent now, as far as your reasoning goes (large environments).
Most FPS games are NOT open world. Only Fallout. You don't travel around the HUGE maps that more or less are one piece of a huge world freely with FPS games. Cmon now.

Quote:
Don't have to know it, just look at the screenshots; it's fairly obvious it's WAY more detailed than a console could ever hope to achieve. & it was released on consoles as well.
But - where is your proof that its WAY more detailed than a console could ever hope to achieve? You've got none to compare to: for all you know the console has the exact same graphics at 720p.

Quote:
They also said BO was a great job on console & that if the 360 version didn't exist the PS3 version would be critically acclaimed as an exclusive. You obv dont agree w/ that.
Critically acclaimed games - OK. That has nothing to do with graphics though. Graphically, Black Ops is piss poor. It's CoD here. CoD's graphics were never, ever, ever anything exciting. Everything in CoD is static and scripted.

Quote:
As well as the PC version blows them both out of the water. & you seem to ignore just how much better BC2 looks on PC because it's not perfect, the AA. DF said the MSAA in KZ3 looks good in the organic environments but causes pixel crawling on long edges; I dont see you pointing that out anywhere & you only post the organic environment SS from the article but not the one next to it where they compared the pixel crawl.
I NEVER said that I dont agree with the PC version of BO being better than the consoles. I said it did, multiple times. But what I have a problem with is that it looks so piss poor on the consoles when it could look alot better. AKA - the opposite of the Mass Effect 2 argument. ME2 on the PC could look alot better but doesnt. BO on the console could look alot better but doesn't.

Actually, if you look back in my post when I first made the MLAA (not MSAA) screenshot post of the organic environment, I specifically mentioned that MLAA has its draw backs and with thin edges have jaggies.
I just didnt post the picture of the weird ass picture DF has up that doesnt really show much with the platform and the ladder. That's the equivalent of me going into any game, walking SUPER close up to a wall - taking a screenshot of it and being like "THESE TEXTURES SUCK" lol
Other than that, there is non jaggies and in motion you never really detect the background ones if present unless you plan on stopping in the middle of nonstop gunfight to checkout the crossplatform's beam structure like DF found it necessary to do.

Quote:
It just seems like you have a pattern of nitpicking small things & trying to make them big when it suits your pov but ignoring the same small details when it doesnt.
Says the one ignoring the unproportional and ugly textures of the tattoos which is my entire argument. No - you seem to do the opposite and pick out the small details and make them much bigger than what they are. Lemme just pause my game really quick while look at an odd structure that has aliasing when the majority of the game doesn't. Then use that in a counter argument as if you're making a point of some sort.


Quote:
Well I haven't even started KZ3 yet so I have no idea what that's a screenshot of. Looks weird to me though, I'm not even sure what I'm looking at. Maybe you could enlighten me, what part of that pic is supposed to look better? The lighting? The textures? The FoV? The draw distance? I'm not sure i get it.
You're joking right? You throw dozens of screenshots at me that show NOTHING and now you're going to sit here, playing stupid, when I show you a screenshot that has better than 16xAA, beautiful textures, multiple sources of lighting, great draw distance, and the whole 9 yards. Do I need to bother past this point?

Quote:
Well a lot of people actually thought Uncharted/Uncharted 2 rendered amazing at some parts but it was really video that was made using in game assets. All the non-playable scenes were. I'm not saying the game doesnt look good, it along w/ GoW3 & KZ3 (im assuming I still havent started it) are the best looking PS3 games out; again this furthers my point you're comparing the absolute best a console game can look to the absolute worst a PC port can look. Not really being objective there.
Uncharted 1 and 2 are really amazing at all parts of the game. Sure, SOME cutscenes are offline renders of the engine. But - there are amazing gameplay parts that are not. The massive train scene was ALL ENTIRELY done ingame and rendered on your screen. It's a technical marvel what they did with that level and stuff they did inside the level like when it blows up on you with the helicopter.

Quote:
Well i can tell you w/ 1,000,000% certainty that 30fps for CoD games would be a game changer. It may not seem like a lot, but 30 to 60 fps does show. For me 60 is necessary, i aim to have that my min frame rate in games. & when Acer finally releases the GN245HQ I'll be building my next rig w/ the goal of 120fps, which coincidentally is the cap on packets per second in BO.
Subjective - 30 to 60 FPS to me makes little to no difference. 60FPS can be smoother, sure, but Im not sensitive to it at all like alot of people are so anal about.
Nemesis NE-α
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790k (Devil's Canyon) AsRock Z97 Extreme 4 Visiontek AMD 6990 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 840 XSPC Raystorm Windows 8.1 Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Ducky Blue Overclock.net Themed Mechanical Keyb... Corsair Silver 1kw  
CaseMouseAudio
Case Labs TH10 Logitech G502 Logitech 5.1 speakers w/ Onkyo Receiver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon W3520 i7 4.0ghz EVGA X58 Classified Visiontek 6990 GSkill 6GB DDR3 Pi 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD ; 2x 1TB ; 2x 2TB Samsung BluRay Burner Windows 7 Ultimate 64x 3x Dell U2311H 23" 1080p IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard SilverStone Strider 1000w Modular Power Supply Lian Li V2000 Plus Logitech G9 Gaming Laser Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Cyba Sniper Tracer (Acrylic Glass) 
  hide details  
Reply
Nemesis NE-α
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790k (Devil's Canyon) AsRock Z97 Extreme 4 Visiontek AMD 6990 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 840 XSPC Raystorm Windows 8.1 Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Ducky Blue Overclock.net Themed Mechanical Keyb... Corsair Silver 1kw  
CaseMouseAudio
Case Labs TH10 Logitech G502 Logitech 5.1 speakers w/ Onkyo Receiver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon W3520 i7 4.0ghz EVGA X58 Classified Visiontek 6990 GSkill 6GB DDR3 Pi 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD ; 2x 1TB ; 2x 2TB Samsung BluRay Burner Windows 7 Ultimate 64x 3x Dell U2311H 23" 1080p IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard SilverStone Strider 1000w Modular Power Supply Lian Li V2000 Plus Logitech G9 Gaming Laser Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Cyba Sniper Tracer (Acrylic Glass) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #113 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28 View Post
I know. Its the main reason why I havent bothered with any games on the PC the past year or so.
Exactly, & it probably has something to do w/ why you're so hyper-defensive of buying console games instead because there's 'almost no difference in quality'.
p.s. when you do that, you're just encouraging game companies to put all their effort on console versions and ignore PC versions. aka part of the problem.

Quote:
Ah ok.
Looking at the name tag, which I never noticed before, it is slightly blurred on the 360 indeed. Though, not illegible at all.
But again, looks worse; never better, only worse.

Quote:
But cutscenes in ME2 was never really about loading up the next level. In fact, those cutscenes were smack in the middle of gameplay.
And, as for textures, I meant them on the PC not the console. You dont need to redesign a game engine to increase texture resolution unless limitations (which only the consoles really there are). In fact, Fallout 3 and New Vegas which makes NO SENSE whatsoever has higher resolution textures on the PS3.
You mean decrease texture resolutions? You wouldnt want to increase them on console because of the low ram. I didn't write the engine so I dont know what it's particular quirks are; I'm just saying it's possible that they could have coded themselves into a corner while optimizing for console first; the way the 360 works, the way the PS3 works and the way the PC work are not that similar. They all require different paths for optimization, which is why multiplatform games tend to look worse than exclusives. PC is just more forgiving because it has a lot more power on reserve. as for New Vegas, you mean to say that the PS3 looks sharper than this? http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1...lloutnvpc4.jpgI don't see how when DF lists the PC version has having more. The only thing the PS3 has that is larger is voice & that's because of foreign languages.
Asset 360 PS3 PC
Textures 1.27GB 1.98GB 2.0GB
Meshes 692MB 644MB 980MB
Voices 1.5GB 4.9GB 1.5GB
Sound 361MB 923MB 811MB
Music 309MB 415MB 522MB
So the textures, which are at least the same quality; look better because they're able to be displayed pixel for pixel with no upscale blurring; & are able to be displayed at their full resolution with farther draw distances due to less aggressive LoD which means the whole picture looks cleaner in general. Meshes are higher because PC can support higher geometric resolution, more realistic models look better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFoundry
As you might expect bearing in mind the PC roots of the engine, it's the computer version of Fallout 3 that is the most technically advanced. The ability to scale up to extreme resolutions and enjoy higher, tear-free frame-rates plus longer draw distances puts it into a class of its own.

Chances are that Digital Foundry will produce a Fallout: New Vegas time-lapse video, and when we do you'll get some idea of how the additional visual refinements can transform the game. In places, it just looks so much better than the console releases even when the core art is essentially exactly the same as the PlayStation 3 version.

The game plays better too. As we pointed out in the original Fallout 3 Face-Off, the ability to use mouse and keys transforms combat. VATS becomes less essential because aiming with the mouse is so much accurate. Assuming your PC hardware isn't from Neolithic times, the combination of more memory and a faster desktop hard drive makes the stuttering of the background streaming far less of an issue than it is in the console games. You also get to enjoy the benefits of each of the console games - high levels of MSAA combined with art that looks identical to the PS3 version's textures.
Quote:
BO looks pretty crappy, and doesnt look better than most console games at all. That's my point.
Since your opinion, and my opinon differ; lets look at a tie-breaker. IGN, a professional video game review site which focuses mainly on the console crowd. They review graphics seperately as part of their process. Lets see what they gave the various CoD games on 360 for example, a good measure of how the general console public views the series graphics.
CoD4 - Graphics 10/10 "From top to bottom, one of the best-looking console games around."
MW2 - Graphics 10/10 "What was already an impressive graphical engine has only improved over the last two years. More effects, grander environments, and a truly spectacular overall visual offering."
BO - Graphics 8.5 "Some strange texture issues pop up every now and again and some levels are more impressive than others. I enjoyed the wider array of colors than what’s in most COD games and some scripted events rock."

yes, BO may not have scored 10; but that's just because of what DF was saying, MW2 already pushed what they could do w/ the engine pretty close to the edge so any improvements made were not as dramatic this time around. 8.5 though is still a better than average score; & my point is validated. Some other new games graphics scores as comparison. Breach got a 5.5, Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 got a 7, MvC2 got a 8.5, TDU2 got a 6, Splatterhouse got a 7, Assasins Creed Brotherhood got a 8.5, EA Sports Active 2 got a 7, Tron Evolution got a 6.5, Dead Space 2 got a 8.5 etc.. On average it's considered a good looking game for console. (& thus an applicable example of why I'm so apathetic to consoles these days because I feel the PC gaming experience 'better gap' is so much more obvious now, than when the consoles launched.)

Quote:
Im not trying to make excuses. You're kidding right? I CLEARLY said that open world games are the one exception that truly cant be played on consoles. They just simply can't. That's not an excuse at all, Im agreeing with you.
Although, there is no reason for some of them like Fallout to perform so damn poorly when games like Assasin's Creed run pretty darn well.
Well it came off, to me, as though you were compartmentalizing to discount the examples. As if it were some abnormality in the larger scheme of things.

Quote:
Not really - no. And when you say better, ok sure: they all have better AA and native resolution. But for the most part the majority of games on PC also on console generally don't have much beyond that worth mentioning.
And this is where we disagree. Higher frame rates, higher resolution models, higher resolution textures (for most games), better handing of said textures, crisper rendering of the display w/ less input lag at 1:1 w/ no need for scaling, better effects (if not extra effects absent on console version), more AA/AF options (even if not in the game, can be forced outside the game many times), other little nuggets like PhysX (& please don't try to say consoles have physx too, it's not the same engine on consoles), etc..

Quote:
And?
You can watch trailers, gameplay previews, play the demo, AND alot of people already have the game. From all of that - it's clear that Crysis 2 is designed with consoles in mind. It's a pretty straightforward game in a MUCH more enclosed space than the island in Crysis 1. Massive difference, and it looks pretty much like the difference that consoles implied.
So you're saying because it's more linear that it's been consolized? It might simply be that the story requires it to be a more path based game. If they did something like forced matchmaking and P2P (a la MW2) I would have to agree with you. But i don't believe they've done that. & I'm fairly certain it will look significantly better on PC; they've gone on record saying PC will be pushed & it will support DX11. We'll see when it's released.

Quote:
Not at all - you know what, you're catching an attitude if Im reading correctly. I've had similar arguements about ME2 over the past month about 10 times over on this forum alone, and even more beyond that. So don't tell me what I am "trying to use as some justification". A TON of people, even you before you posted, believe that ME2 is a "fantastic example of how PC games are SO much better". Please.
Not catching an attitude, just pointing out that you've been harping on a couple games which you've singled out as being bad examples of console ports while disregarding all other PC games which run & look obviously better than the console versions. While at the same time asserting that every other console game (like BO) which looks noticeably worse on console should be disregarded because it "should" look better on console than it does; with examples of the select few games which do look good on console as reference points. It's circular logic & doesn't change the reality that PC just runs games better & makes them look better (even if a little); never worse. The whole point.

Quote:
Then give me a reason why screenshots of the 360 version pretty much match PC versions of the game? TV upscaling aside which not everyone has enabled, I generally have most of my games that I have control over always force 720p no matter what TV Im using. Also - you act as if the upscaling of the TV is terrible, and thats not true at all. TVs, and sometimes the game consoles themselves, do a terrific job at upscaling and dont blur it as much as you make it out to be. You're exaggerating the effect as if it makes it so you can't see anything lol You're just wrong.
If you dont have upscaling enabled, then you've got a giant black border around your game on your 1080p TV. Most people don't play like that. Also, some games you cant do anything about the scaling, because the game renders sub-720p and will always, always scale it in software to 720p; even before the console or TV upscales it to 1080p. That's double scaling, or double the blur introduced by the scaling.

As far as the quality of the scaling, that really depends on the method employed by the game/console/TV. most TVs have crappy bicubicesque Genesis scalars, not HQV realta chips; the 360 has a decent AVIVO based scaler built into the Xenos which is slightly crappier than a Lanczos scale, the PS3 has some broken horizontal scaling only chip which almost no developers ever use, so it all depends on what software scale they decide to use. Most people just let their TVs do it w/ the PS3 because software upscaling of that magnitude 720p-1080p usually comes w/ a performance hit. In all cases though blur is introduced; 360 has the best scale assuming you dont have a seperate video processor (or high end amp w/ a quality chip like a Silicon Optix HQV realta or Marvell Qdeo) in your home theater setup to run it through; but it still introduces blur.

Quote:
Oh - so disregard the ugly unproportional textures which is EXACTLY what Im talking about. Im the one with excuses? OK.
Exactly, it's the only thing you've talked about, your focus has been on those couple games & the worst parts about the ports. My point.

Quote:
Still don't quite see what you're trying to compare with completely different screenshots of completely different scenes of completely different objects with completely different weapons in hand. Clarity? The console version is pretty damn clear to me. The objects far off are so differnent you can't compare them to the ones you have. The buildings in your second screenshots are completely different from the ones in the third one so the whole "clarity" argument is shot because you can't seem to differentiate between the levels. The first picture one doesn't even have anything in view to begin with!
Come on now, you act as though it's impossible to tell any difference if the screenshots arent exactly the same. It's fairly obvious you're playing dumb about the PQ difference. It's easy to see which one is clearer looking. A picture of a daisy at 640x480 and take a picture of a rose at 5MP, you would say you cant tell the picture of the rose looks better because it's not the same image.

Quote:
I'm telling you I more or less agree. But it's the one thing that honestly is completely different in a discussion in a Killzone 3 thread yet alone ones that have primarily focused on games like Mass Effect. Why the hell would you bring GTA?
You agree that it's not just open world games that look better on PC? Finally. I would have thought the NFS:S screenshots would have made that obvious. I brought GTA up in just in a few screenshots; in addition to a bunch of other games which I just grabbed screenshots off of the B3D PC screenshot thread as examples. Not for any specific reason, just because it happened to be in the last couple pages of that thread. Pure convenience. The goal, was to move the discussion away from your focus on ME2's sporadically scattered weirdly low arm textures & to the reality that most PC games look better, period.

Quote:
I guess speculation is nice too - lets throw that into the mix on the conversation lol
That's not speculation, that's common sense. Neither console has the assets to render that level of detail. It's not even remotely possible. Memory limited, again.

Quote:
Ok?
Ok, yes. Partially because I was disappointed w/ the final product. Never got damage as promised. You can flip cars but they wont even scratch? You can dent some cars in a couple preformed ways but it has no impact on performance. It's just bumper cars again. Lots of cars, but most of them dont have interiors. Physics which still aren't on par w/ PC sims that have been out years. It's understandable to say I was underwhelmed & not exactly excited by the time it finally came out. I only ended up w/ it because I never got around to canceling my pre-order and it showed up in the mail one day. The main reason I haven't touched it is because I feel it's a time sink with no payoff. I don't particularly want to spend hours in boring races so I can buy the cars I actually want to drive. If it was like GT5P and i could just upload a save file to get all the cars then I might give it a go. But I'm pretty sure Trophies have ruined that plus that the PS3 had.

Quote:
Most FPS games are NOT open world. Only Fallout. You don't travel around the HUGE maps that more or less are one piece of a huge world freely with FPS games. Cmon now.
First of all Fallout is not that technically demanding on PC. DF itself said it's Gamebryo tech is pretty outdated & it really doesnt take more than a 8800GT to handle; so it's not as though it's a resource crushing monster and FPS games are easy breezy. You act like Crysis would have been a walk in the park if wasn't an island you could roam freely. It crushed systems at the time because of its graphical tech not because of it's scale; there are plenty of games much bigger in scale. Are you saying that KZ3 isn't some sort of technical wonderkin because it's a FPS? It's essentially as good as it gets visually on console from what I've read & this whole thread is based on the developers talking about how much they optimized maximally for the architecture & resource limitations. The shining beacon of console gaming so to say, & it doesn't even have HDR.

Quote:
But - where is your proof that its WAY more detailed than a console could ever hope to achieve? You've got none to compare to: for all you know the console has the exact same graphics at 720p.
Just look at it. It's blatantly obvious. For one, its actually rendered at 1080p in the PC SS, which is higher than 720p and thus sharper. & 2, are you serious?
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/a...60_026.jpg.jpg

Quote:
Critically acclaimed games - OK. That has nothing to do with graphics though. Graphically, Black Ops is piss poor. It's CoD here. CoD's graphics were never, ever, ever anything exciting. Everything in CoD is static and scripted.
see above, already submitted proof the general public as well as game reviews consider it graphically above average to excellent on console. IGN 10 + 10 + 8.5 / 3 = 9.5, well above the average score for graphics console games receive.

Quote:
I NEVER said that I dont agree with the PC version of BO being better than the consoles. I said it did, multiple times. But what I have a problem with is that it looks so piss poor on the consoles when it could look alot better. AKA - the opposite of the Mass Effect 2 argument. ME2 on the PC could look alot better but doesnt. BO on the console could look alot better but doesn't.
For one, yes ME2 could look better on PC. But BO would have a hard time looking better on console. It's not a 2 way street. One has headroom the other doesn't. That's the whole point. All things are not equal.

Quote:
Actually, if you look back in my post when I first made the MLAA (not MSAA) screenshot post of the organic environment, I specifically mentioned that MLAA has its draw backs and with thin edges have jaggies.
I just didnt post the picture of the weird ass picture DF has up that doesnt really show much with the platform and the ladder. That's the equivalent of me going into any game, walking SUPER close up to a wall - taking a screenshot of it and being like "THESE TEXTURES SUCK" lol
Other than that, there is non jaggies and in motion you never really detect the background ones if present unless you plan on stopping in the middle of nonstop gunfight to checkout the crossplatform's beam structure like DF found it necessary to do.
Well I didn't see that & I don't have the patience to scan through all your posts, so post a permalink to it if you know where it is & ill give you props for being honest. Otherwise, nitpicking is nitpicking. I could say KZ2's textures sucked all day, but it doesn't really matter because it's not a game on the PC & kinda irrelevant to the argument.

Quote:
Says the one ignoring the unproportional and ugly textures of the tattoos which is my entire argument. No - you seem to do the opposite and pick out the small details and make them much bigger than what they are. Lemme just pause my game really quick while look at an odd structure that has aliasing when the majority of the game doesn't. Then use that in a counter argument as if you're making a point of some sort.
Exactly, your entire argument is based on nitpicking a specific stickling point in a specific game. You're hyper-focused & being myopic to the whole point of what started your argument w/ me. The fact that I said I was apathetic to console gaming now because it just doesn't compare to what's on the PC. No matter how much you try to redirect to a feature of a game which you disagree looks similar to a console version; all you're doing is trying to prove that point. Which is a just a nibble in a small piece of a big pie.

Quote:
You're joking right? You throw dozens of screenshots at me that show NOTHING and now you're going to sit here, playing stupid, when I show you a screenshot that has better than 16xAA, beautiful textures, multiple sources of lighting, great draw distance, and the whole 9 yards. Do I need to bother past this point?
How you could think they show nothing is beyond me. It's fairly obvious they look good. & if you've been playing on console as long as you have it should be easy for you to discern the difference in graphical fidelity. Either you're not nearly as "sensitive" to detail as you assert or you're playing dumb. Go back and look at some of those Mafia 2 shots and try to tell me you've seen a console game look that good, ever. You can't because it's technically impossible. The only thing you could say is you prefer the art style better in a specific game that isn't on PC.

Quote:
Uncharted 1 and 2 are really amazing at all parts of the game. Sure, SOME cutscenes are offline renders of the engine. But - there are amazing gameplay parts that are not. The massive train scene was ALL ENTIRELY done ingame and rendered on your screen. It's a technical marvel what they did with that level and stuff they did inside the level like when it blows up on you with the helicopter.
From what I read at DF, all the cut scenes were video that was made w/ mocap & in game assets. & yes it does look good, for a console game. about as good as it can get. again, my whole reasoning behind my general apathy towards consoles; they've peaked. they ain't gettin any better & the best of what they have to offer doesn't impress me anymore. no matter what they do they still have faults which can't be rectified; whether it be blur, frame rate, input lag, textures, lighting, filtering, etc.. there's always some tradeoff. Focus all you want on the couple elite big budget exclusive titles; but that's not going to change the fact that most games aren't like that & most games look noticeably better on PC. If you're seroiusly going to sit there and try to use the best possible console games as reference points to compare against the worst possible PC games, lets do the opposite and see just how large the disparity between the two are. Take the best possible looking PC games and compare it to the worst looking console games. Seems ridiculous to even say that right? Well it's just as ridiculous as what you're attempting to do.

Quote:
Subjective - 30 to 60 FPS to me makes little to no difference. 60FPS can be smoother, sure, but Im not sensitive to it at all like alot of people are so anal about.
Nice little dismissive there. Yes people are just being "anal" about wanting a smooth frame rate. There's no difference between 30 and 60fps right? I'd be willing to bet if you made a poll on here asking if people can see a difference between 30 & 60FPS you'd end up with a different result; one that show's it's not just people being "anal" (i.e. obsessing over something which is imperceptible). 30FPS is just the average for the human brain to interpret what it sees as motion. Movies which are 24FPS often seem like they're jittery during fast motion & the only reason they're that speed is because film used to be extremely expensive since it was silver based. Modern movies you see now & 3D movies are being shot 120FPS (though only the 3D ones show it at that, 2D they still show as 24p because it's what people have come to expect unconsciously). 3D wasn't even adopted until 120Hz screens because flickering of 30FPS would give you serious eye strain & likely headaches; 60FPS was considered the bare minimum. It's been proven that jet pilots can see in excess of 200FPS, and that's only because of their reaction time which while better than 99% of the population is still limited by their physicality. It's estimated the human eye can see up to an estimated 500FPS in optimal conditions. So yes, I think the difference between 30 and 60FPS is perceptible.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #114 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by pale_neon View Post
p.s. when you do that, you're just encouraging game companies to put all their effort on console versions and ignore PC versions. aka part of the problem.
not my problem. lol!
post #115 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by pale_neon View Post
Exactly, & it probably has something to do w/ why you're so hyper-defensive of buying console games instead because there's 'almost no difference in quality'.
p.s. when you do that, you're just encouraging game companies to put all their effort on console versions and ignore PC versions. aka part of the problem.
Well buying games like ME2 like I've done on the PC doesnt encourage them to do anything more with their game either. Your point is more or less negated in your own logic.

Quote:
But again, looks worse; never better, only worse.
But that's not the argument being taken place here. It's about PC games looking better then what they actually do. NO ONE here is making the argument console games look better than PC, nor do they in any particular instance. You're just pulling stuff out of thin air now because you forgot the original argument, which makes all of this one big waste of time.

Quote:
You mean decrease texture resolutions? You wouldnt want to increase them on console because of the low ram.
Who said ON THE CONSOLE? Im talking about PC here, infact I even said it one sentence prior to the bolded one your directing your statement at. Again, you're forgetting the argument at hand.

Quote:
I didn't write the engine so I dont know what it's particular quirks are; I'm just saying it's possible that they could have coded themselves into a corner while optimizing for console first; the way the 360 works, the way the PS3 works and the way the PC work are not that similar. They all require different paths for optimization, which is why multiplatform games tend to look worse than exclusives. PC is just more forgiving because it has a lot more power on reserve. as for New Vegas, you mean to say that the PS3 looks sharper than this? http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1...lloutnvpc4.jpgI don't see how when DF lists the PC version has having more. The only thing the PS3 has that is larger is voice & that's because of foreign languages.
Asset 360 PS3 PC
Textures 1.27GB 1.98GB 2.0GB
Meshes 692MB 644MB 980MB
Voices 1.5GB 4.9GB 1.5GB
Sound 361MB 923MB 811MB
Music 309MB 415MB 522MB
So the textures, which are at least the same quality; look better because they're able to be displayed pixel for pixel with no upscale blurring; & are able to be displayed at their full resolution with farther draw distances due to less aggressive LoD which means the whole picture looks cleaner in general. Meshes are higher because PC can support higher geometric resolution, more realistic models look better.
OMG again NO
You completely misread everything I said.
I said "In fact, Fallout 3 and New Vegas which makes NO SENSE whatsoever has higher resolution textures on the PS3. " Higher resolution textures on the PS3 as compared to the 360. You put the values up yourself: did you not read them? Are you just copying info off of DF and not reading it? lol

360/PS3/PC
Textures 1.27GB 1.98GB 2.0GB

Why on a game that is already more or less broken on the console would you put higher resolution textures? The console being the PS3 because you'll just misread it if I dont take it step by step here. The PS3 has problems loading the levels and playing through them without stuttering due to load and streaming in content. What on earth would posses the developer to further increase load by putting bigger textures on it when it's already having problems? That's just BAD DESIGN.
And why are they having problems with loading and streaming content? EA's Assassin's Creed 1, 2, and Brotherhood all do it fine on the 360 and PS3 pretty damn well. That's double whammy right there for Bethesda. Fallout on the consoles are poorly designed.

But - if you read it like several times over that I said - I agree with you that open world games on the PC is the only way for them to be played. Regardless of how badly designed.

Quote:
Since your opinion, and my opinon differ; lets look at a tie-breaker. IGN, a professional video game review site which focuses mainly on the console crowd. They review graphics seperately as part of their process. Lets see what they gave the various CoD games on 360 for example, a good measure of how the general console public views the series graphics.
CoD4 - Graphics 10/10 "From top to bottom, one of the best-looking console games around."
MW2 - Graphics 10/10 "What was already an impressive graphical engine has only improved over the last two years. More effects, grander environments, and a truly spectacular overall visual offering."
BO - Graphics 8.5 "Some strange texture issues pop up every now and again and some levels are more impressive than others. I enjoyed the wider array of colors than what’s in most COD games and some scripted events rock."

yes, BO may not have scored 10; but that's just because of what DF was saying, MW2 already pushed what they could do w/ the engine pretty close to the edge so any improvements made were not as dramatic this time around. 8.5 though is still a better than average score; & my point is validated. Some other new games graphics scores as comparison. Breach got a 5.5, Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 got a 7, MvC2 got a 8.5, TDU2 got a 6, Splatterhouse got a 7, Assasins Creed Brotherhood got a 8.5, EA Sports Active 2 got a 7, Tron Evolution got a 6.5, Dead Space 2 got a 8.5 etc.. On average it's considered a good looking game for console. (& thus an applicable example of why I'm so apathetic to consoles these days because I feel the PC gaming experience 'better gap' is so much more obvious now, than when the consoles launched.)
IGN isn't a place I go to reviews, I don't trust them by far. Neither do ALOT of people. Same goes for other critics like Gamespot and Joystiq. Even Eurogamer isn't trusted by alot of people. Good for reference but nothing to judge from.
One way or the other, most critics are biased towards what the populace likes and will get them the most hits no matter what. To say that something like CoD or Halo has good graphics is a predetermined thing. If you dont think that then you honestly havent read much. Then again - it's clear you haven't. Watch:

Halo 3 got a 9 in graphics. Halo 3 never looked even remotely decent graphically even when it did launch. There were games a year older than it that could compare easily. You give a crappy looking game a 9? Good job IGN - you're great at this
BUT THATS NOT THE BEST PART!!! This is where it gets good:
Read what it even says there under it - "its to die for in 1080p". Halo 3 doesnt even render in 720p! LOL Who are you kidding? Horrible source to use in your argument for graphics dude. You've effectively shot yourself in the foot with this one. The fact you even tried to use IGN in this was an insult. No more man - just no more.

The examples you listed are shoddy too. Bionic Commando Rearmed? Breach? EA Sports Active? Those arent even full games yet alone graphical ones worth mentioning to compare. You're CLEARLY grasping at straws here.
And for the record, DS2 is way better graphically than Black Ops regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. It's not even a comparison to make. DS2 is simply fantastic especially in the lighting department. Not to mention, only very few parts in the game are actually scripted as compared to the linear and heavily scripted Black Ops.

Quote:

And this is where we disagree. Higher frame rates, higher resolution models, higher resolution textures (for most games), better handing of said textures, crisper rendering of the display w/ less input lag at 1:1 w/ no need for scaling, better effects (if not extra effects absent on console version), more AA/AF options (even if not in the game, can be forced outside the game many times), other little nuggets like PhysX (& please don't try to say consoles have physx too, it's not the same engine on consoles), etc..
You're wrong! Most game ports to the PC do NOT have higher resolution models or textures or effects. Bad Company 2 - again - is the same case as Mass Effect 2. Copy pasta textures. The same could be said for Batman AA as well. Look in their archived files and read the resolution of the textures out loud to yourself.

Don't get me started with PhysX either. Havok, as proven with Uncharted 2, is tremendous and can be accomplished on consoles just as good if not better than most PhysX enabled games in their entirety. Oh Batman AA gets those stupid cloth banner things? LOL Nathan Drake is running away from a helicopter and EVERYTHING in the entire scene is reacting to the helicopter's movements down the tinniest of objects like stray paper bits. No competition.

Quote:
So you're saying because it's more linear that it's been consolized? It might simply be that the story requires it to be a more path based game. If they did something like forced matchmaking and P2P (a la MW2) I would have to agree with you. But i don't believe they've done that. & I'm fairly certain it will look significantly better on PC; they've gone on record saying PC will be pushed & it will support DX11. We'll see when it's released.
I NEVER said it wont look significantly better on PC. Again - you're just making stuff up and it's getting stupid.
It does! Never denied that. But in Crysis 1 you have more or less giant parts of an island to explore and play with. Crysis 2 you get much tighter and enclosed city streets/squares similar to say - Killzone 3.

Quote:
Not catching an attitude, just pointing out that you've been harping on a couple games which you've singled out as being bad examples of console ports while disregarding all other PC games which run & look obviously better than the console versions. While at the same time asserting that every other console game (like BO) which looks noticeably worse on console should be disregarded because it "should" look better on console than it does; with examples of the select few games which do look good on console as reference points. It's circular logic & doesn't change the reality that PC just runs games better & makes them look better (even if a little); never worse. The whole point.
But that was NEVER my argument. You've failed to grasp everything thats been repeated 20 times over. The fact is, most console games that get to PC don't look as fantastic as they could. I must've said that HOW MANY TIME NOW? How many more do I need to in order to get you to understand this is what Im saying? Do I need to make a gigantic image file with it?

I harp on Mass Effect 2 because people, even you prior to this discussion, would praise ME2 for being such a good PC game. Over the past month, at least 5 real arguments here on OCN alone about how ME2 on the PC doesnt look much different from the console version at all. AA and native resolution doesn't change the look of the game. It might make it look somewhat more better just by smoothing out lines, but other things that COULD HAVE been improved but werent for no real reason makes it look exactly the consoles. I've had to have repeated this so many times now, in so many different ways, that it's beginning to hurt. Just stop now.

Quote:
If you dont have upscaling enabled, then you've got a giant black border around your game on your 1080p TV. Most people don't play like that. Also, some games you cant do anything about the scaling, because the game renders sub-720p and will always, always scale it in software to 720p; even before the console or TV upscales it to 1080p. That's double scaling, or double the blur introduced by the scaling.
By not having the upscaling enabled - I mean I dont have my TV or my reciever have upscaling turned on. I let the console hardware do it however the developers intend for it. Games like Uncharted for example have very different ways on upscaling depending on how your setup is done and it can lead to a difference. Read the DF article I believe on Uncharted 1 and 2. The developers either have their game output 720p to be upscaled by either the console or the TV, I just let the game do whatever it wants to do.

And your entire sub-720p rendered thing makes no sense. You have total control on upscaling. You can tell your console hardware to not output 1080p and your TV not to upscale it either.

Quote:
As far as the quality of the scaling, that really depends on the method employed by the game/console/TV. most TVs have crappy bicubicesque Genesis scalars, not HQV realta chips; the 360 has a decent AVIVO based scaler built into the Xenos which is slightly crappier than a Lanczos scale, the PS3 has some broken horizontal scaling only chip which almost no developers ever use, so it all depends on what software scale they decide to use. Most people just let their TVs do it w/ the PS3 because software upscaling of that magnitude 720p-1080p usually comes w/ a performance hit. In all cases though blur is introduced; 360 has the best scale assuming you dont have a seperate video processor (or high end amp w/ a quality chip like a Silicon Optix HQV realta or Marvell Qdeo) in your home theater setup to run it through; but it still introduces blur.
I'm aware of all of this. Waste of time. My point to you is that the blur isn't as effecting as you make it out to be. Most of the time, upscaling is done very well by the console itself either hardware or software wise.

Quote:
Come on now, you act as though it's impossible to tell any difference if the screenshots arent exactly the same. It's fairly obvious you're playing dumb about the PQ difference. It's easy to see which one is clearer looking. A picture of a daisy at 640x480 and take a picture of a rose at 5MP, you would say you cant tell the picture of the rose looks better because it's not the same image.
Nope. Because - look at those buildings in the far back of the third screenshot in comparison to the second screenshot. The one in the second screenshot look alot better but thats only because in the third screenshot - they're totally different buildings in a totally different level with a totally different distance from them with totally different landscapes to boot.

Your analogy of the rose and daisy is so stupid, I couldnt even laugh at it. You dont even realize how much of a difference between 640x480 and 5MP is clearly.

Quote:
You agree that it's not just open world games that look better on PC? Finally. I would have thought the NFS:S screenshots would have made that obvious. I brought GTA up in just in a few screenshots; in addition to a bunch of other games which I just grabbed screenshots off of the B3D PC screenshot thread as examples. Not for any specific reason, just because it happened to be in the last couple pages of that thread. Pure convenience. The goal, was to move the discussion away from your focus on ME2's sporadically scattered weirdly low arm textures & to the reality that most PC games look better, period.

That's not speculation, that's common sense. Neither console has the assets to render that level of detail. It's not even remotely possible. Memory limited, again.


Ok, yes. Partially because I was disappointed w/ the final product. Never got damage as promised. You can flip cars but they wont even scratch? You can dent some cars in a couple preformed ways but it has no impact on performance. It's just bumper cars again. Lots of cars, but most of them dont have interiors. Physics which still aren't on par w/ PC sims that have been out years. It's understandable to say I was underwhelmed & not exactly excited by the time it finally came out. I only ended up w/ it because I never got around to canceling my pre-order and it showed up in the mail one day. The main reason I haven't touched it is because I feel it's a time sink with no payoff. I don't particularly want to spend hours in boring races so I can buy the cars I actually want to drive. If it was like GT5P and i could just upload a save file to get all the cars then I might give it a go. But I'm pretty sure Trophies have ruined that plus that the PS3 had.

First of all Fallout is not that technically demanding on PC. DF itself said it's Gamebryo tech is pretty outdated & it really doesnt take more than a 8800GT to handle; so it's not as though it's a resource crushing monster and FPS games are easy breezy. You act like Crysis would have been a walk in the park if wasn't an island you could roam freely. It crushed systems at the time because of its graphical tech not because of it's scale; there are plenty of games much bigger in scale. Are you saying that KZ3 isn't some sort of technical wonderkin because it's a FPS? It's essentially as good as it gets visually on console from what I've read & this whole thread is based on the developers talking about how much they optimized maximally for the architecture & resource limitations. The shining beacon of console gaming so to say, & it doesn't even have HDR.


Just look at it. It's blatantly obvious. For one, its actually rendered at 1080p in the PC SS, which is higher than 720p and thus sharper. & 2, are you serious?

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/a...60_026.jpg.jpg

see above, already submitted proof the general public as well as game reviews consider it graphically above average to excellent on console. IGN 10 + 10 + 8.5 / 3 = 9.5, well above the average score for graphics console games receive.

For one, yes ME2 could look better on PC. But BO would have a hard time looking better on console. It's not a 2 way street. One has headroom the other doesn't. That's the whole point. All things are not equal.

Well I didn't see that & I don't have the patience to scan through all your posts, so post a permalink to it if you know where it is & ill give you props for being honest. Otherwise, nitpicking is nitpicking. I could say KZ2's textures sucked all day, but it doesn't really matter because it's not a game on the PC & kinda irrelevant to the argument.
/quote]
Exactly, your entire argument is based on nitpicking a specific stickling point in a specific game. You're hyper-focused & being myopic to the whole point of what started your argument w/ me. The fact that I said I was apathetic to console gaming now because it just doesn't compare to what's on the PC. No matter how much you try to redirect to a feature of a game which you disagree looks similar to a console version; all you're doing is trying to prove that point. Which is a just a nibble in a small piece of a big pie.

How you could think they show nothing is beyond me. It's fairly obvious they look good. & if you've been playing on console as long as you have it should be easy for you to discern the difference in graphical fidelity. Either you're not nearly as "sensitive" to detail as you assert or you're playing dumb. Go back and look at some of those Mafia 2 shots and try to tell me you've seen a console game look that good, ever. You can't because it's technically impossible. The only thing you could say is you prefer the art style better in a specific game that isn't on PC.

[quot
From what I read at DF, all the cut scenes were video that was made w/ mocap & in game assets. & yes it does look good, for a console game. about as good as it can get. again, my whole reasoning behind my general apathy towards consoles; they've peaked. they ain't gettin any better & the best of what they have to offer doesn't impress me anymore. no matter what they do they still have faults which can't be rectified; whether it be blur, frame rate, input lag, textures, lighting, filtering, etc.. there's always some tradeoff. Focus all you want on the couple elite big budget exclusive titles; but that's not going to change the fact that most games aren't like that & most games look noticeably better on PC. If you're seroiusly going to sit there and try to use the best possible console games as reference points to compare against the worst possible PC games, lets do the opposite and see just how large the disparity between the two are. Take the best possible looking PC games and compare it to the worst looking console games. Seems ridiculous to even say that right? Well it's just as ridiculous as what you're attempting to do.

Nice little dismissive there. Yes people are just being "anal" about wanting a smooth frame rate. There's no difference between 30 and 60fps right? I'd be willing to bet if you made a poll on here asking if people can see a difference between 30 & 60FPS you'd end up with a different result; one that show's it's not just people being "anal" (i.e. obsessing over something which is imperceptible). 30FPS is just the average for the human brain to interpret what it sees as motion. Movies which are 24FPS often seem like they're jittery during fast motion & the only reason they're that speed is because film used to be extremely expensive since it was silver based. Modern movies you see now & 3D movies are being shot 120FPS (though only the 3D ones show it at that, 2D they still show as 24p because it's what people have come to expect unconsciously). 3D wasn't even adopted until 120Hz screens because flickering of 30FPS would give you serious eye strain & likely headaches; 60FPS was considered the bare minimum. It's been proven that jet pilots can see in excess of 200FPS, and that's only because of their reaction time which while better than 99% of the population is still limited by their physicality. It's estimated the human eye can see up to an estimated 500FPS in optimal conditions. So yes, I think the difference between 30 and 60FPS is perceptible.
[/quote]

I had all of this seperated up and ready to respond to. Do for alot of them, but the majority of the time you either completely misquoted me, misunderstood me, or are going places that you don't even have anything to do with what I said - was saying - or has said. Alot of it also would just be repeating what I've been saying over the past couple pages over and over to you, which would be pointless. This entire thing as been pointless - you still dont even remember what the initial argument was about. You've been acting like I've been saying that consoles look better than PC but yet I've never said anything remotely similar. It's just plain sad to think you wasted all your time typing all this up because you just completely ignored what I said. Or are grasping at straws like the IGN thing - that was quite funny.

You can think whatever you want to think dude. But you're fooling yourself if the games that are out on the PC right now in comparison to the SAME games on the consoles are that much more better. You've forgotten what good actually looks like and are under the false belief that what you have right now on your precious PC is actually fantastic graphics, meanwhile they can do a whole lot more. Maybe with the slew of upcoming games, it'll hit you. Then again, judging by the way you've managed to twist everything to be something it isn't: perhaps not.
Edited by OmegaNemesis28 - 2/25/11 at 10:30pm
Nemesis NE-α
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790k (Devil's Canyon) AsRock Z97 Extreme 4 Visiontek AMD 6990 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 840 XSPC Raystorm Windows 8.1 Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Ducky Blue Overclock.net Themed Mechanical Keyb... Corsair Silver 1kw  
CaseMouseAudio
Case Labs TH10 Logitech G502 Logitech 5.1 speakers w/ Onkyo Receiver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon W3520 i7 4.0ghz EVGA X58 Classified Visiontek 6990 GSkill 6GB DDR3 Pi 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD ; 2x 1TB ; 2x 2TB Samsung BluRay Burner Windows 7 Ultimate 64x 3x Dell U2311H 23" 1080p IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard SilverStone Strider 1000w Modular Power Supply Lian Li V2000 Plus Logitech G9 Gaming Laser Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Cyba Sniper Tracer (Acrylic Glass) 
  hide details  
Reply
Nemesis NE-α
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790k (Devil's Canyon) AsRock Z97 Extreme 4 Visiontek AMD 6990 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 840 XSPC Raystorm Windows 8.1 Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Ducky Blue Overclock.net Themed Mechanical Keyb... Corsair Silver 1kw  
CaseMouseAudio
Case Labs TH10 Logitech G502 Logitech 5.1 speakers w/ Onkyo Receiver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon W3520 i7 4.0ghz EVGA X58 Classified Visiontek 6990 GSkill 6GB DDR3 Pi 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD ; 2x 1TB ; 2x 2TB Samsung BluRay Burner Windows 7 Ultimate 64x 3x Dell U2311H 23" 1080p IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard SilverStone Strider 1000w Modular Power Supply Lian Li V2000 Plus Logitech G9 Gaming Laser Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Cyba Sniper Tracer (Acrylic Glass) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28 View Post
Well buying games like ME2 like I've done on the PC doesnt encourage them to do anything more with their game either. Your point is more or less negated in your own logic.
If people didnt buy console games and only bought PC games, do you think they would spend all that effort optimizing it for consoles? It's simple logic. It's no secret that the games industry has been uppity about preferring consoles because of the customer base size & proclivity to be less piratey (though i believe that is untrue personally, there are tons of console pirates & tons of digital distribution sales of PC games which aren't recorded.)

Quote:
But that's not the argument being taken place here. It's about PC games looking better then what they actually do. NO ONE here is making the argument console games look better than PC, nor do they in any particular instance. You're just pulling stuff out of thin air now because you forgot the original argument, which makes all of this one big waste of time.
I didn't forget anything. That's YOUR argument, not OUR argument. I disagree completely with it. MY initial statement which caused you to start YOUR argument was that I had grown indifferent to console games because of how much better the PC gaming experience is nowadays.

Quote:
Who said ON THE CONSOLE? Im talking about PC here, infact I even said it one sentence prior to the bolded one your directing your statement at. Again, you're forgetting the argument at hand.
I bolded that part because the grammar was so bad I couldn't understand the context of your statement. That's why I asked you the question. Because I honestly could not make heads or tails of the english. p.s. i notice you say "ALOT" a lot. it's 2 words You said "you don't need to redesign a game's engine to increase texture resolution unless limitations" the sentence is incomplete & limitations would imply you want lower res textures for smaller files, not larger ones. Why would you put more stress on a system with limitations? Whatever that's all bugaboo anyway.

Quote:
OMG again NO
You completely misread everything I said.
I said "In fact, Fallout 3 and New Vegas which makes NO SENSE whatsoever has higher resolution textures on the PS3. " Higher resolution textures on the PS3 as compared to the 360. You put the values up yourself: did you not read them? Are you just copying info off of DF and not reading it? lol

360/PS3/PC
Textures 1.27GB 1.98GB 2.0GB
actually you were first talking about PC, then you went on to talk about the higher textures because of limitations which i covered above gobledegoop, then you said "In fact, Fallout 3 and New Vegas which makes NO SENSE whatsoever has higher resolution textures on the PS3." with the last system you were talking about in your paragraph being PC, logically one would conclude that was what you're comparing it to. not "Higher resolution textures on the PS3 as compared to the 360." you just added that part to your reply, look for yourself, third quote-reply down.

Quote:
Why on a game that is already more or less broken on the console would you put higher resolution textures? The console being the PS3 because you'll just misread it if I dont take it step by step here. The PS3 has problems loading the levels and playing through them without stuttering due to load and streaming in content. What on earth would posses the developer to further increase load by putting bigger textures on it when it's already having problems? That's just BAD DESIGN.
And why are they having problems with loading and streaming content? EA's Assassin's Creed 1, 2, and Brotherhood all do it fine on the 360 and PS3 pretty damn well. That's double whammy right there for Bethesda. Fallout on the consoles are poorly designed.
Again, this is some gripe about a game or developer or somesuch which has nothing to do w/ the crux of the matter. Especially since you're now complaining about the PS3 version of a game. & I like how you ignored the evidence for higher resolution models due to the 50% higher amount of data for meshes on the PC.

Quote:
But - if you read it like several times over that I said - I agree with you that open world games on the PC is the only way for them to be played. Regardless of how badly designed.
Quote:
IGN isn't a place I go to reviews, I don't trust them by far. Neither do ALOT of people. Same goes for other critics like Gamespot and Joystiq. Even Eurogamer isn't trusted by alot of people. Good for reference but nothing to judge from.
One way or the other, most critics are biased towards what the populace likes and will get them the most hits no matter what. To say that something like CoD or Halo has good graphics is a predetermined thing. If you dont think that then you honestly havent read much. Then again - it's clear you haven't. Watch:

Halo 3 got a 9 in graphics. Halo 3 never looked even remotely decent graphically even when it did launch. There were games a year older than it that could compare easily. You give a crappy looking game a 9? Good job IGN - you're great at this
BUT THATS NOT THE BEST PART!!! This is where it gets good:
Read what it even says there under it - "its to die for in 1080p". Halo 3 doesnt even render in 720p! LOL Who are you kidding? Horrible source to use in your argument for graphics dude. You've effectively shot yourself in the foot with this one. The fact you even tried to use IGN in this was an insult. No more man - just no more.
First of all, the point i was trying to make was that console gamers (aka people who dont PC game, and who's only base for "good graphics" are other console games) consider the CoD series to have had "good graphics" on console. IGN is a perfect place to grab reviews from that would represent those types of gamers. That's where they go for reviews, that's who they agree with for the most part; right or wrong. No matter how clueless they are.

Quote:
The examples you listed are shoddy too. Bionic Commando Rearmed? Breach? EA Sports Active? Those arent even full games yet alone graphical ones worth mentioning to compare. You're CLEARLY grasping at straws here.
And for the record, DS2 is way better graphically than Black Ops regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. It's not even a comparison to make. DS2 is simply fantastic especially in the lighting department. Not to mention, only very few parts in the game are actually scripted as compared to the linear and heavily scripted Black Ops.
The examples I listed I gathered in this fashion, I opened the list of 360 reviews, sorted by most recent reviews and opened them in order. That's it. I didn't cherry pick any games; I just grabbed the first ones on the list that weren't arcade or indie games. Completely randomly, which was the whole point; to show that CoD on average is considered a better looking console games than most.

Quote:
You're wrong! Most game ports to the PC do NOT have higher resolution models or textures or effects. Bad Company 2 - again - is the same case as Mass Effect 2. Copy pasta textures. The same could be said for Batman AA as well. Look in their archived files and read the resolution of the textures out loud to yourself.
Prove me wrong. Show me statistics, all you've been able to do so far is show that ME2 & DS2 could have been better on PC. Not exactly a compelling argument to say "most game ports to PC do NOT..." 2 out of how many? I'm going to do an experiment, here's a random list of games i copypastaed off metacritic that I know have console counterparts. Lets see how many you can find fault w/ and say look the same on console.

Bulletstorm
Test Drive Unlimited 2
Two Worlds II
Breach
DC Universe Online
Battlefield BC Vietnam
TRON: Evolution
Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions
Mafia II
Apache: Air Assault
Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit
Tom Clancy's HAWX 2
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II
Arcania: Gothic 4
Dragon Age: Origins - Ultimate Edition
Fallout: New Vegas
Lost Planet 2
Medal of Honor
Borderlands: Game of the Year Edition
Left 4 Dead 2: The Sacrifice
Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light
Dead Rising 2
Darksiders
R.U.S.E.
ARMA II
Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den
Sam & Max: The Devil's Playhouse - Episode 5: The City That Dares Not Sleep
Kane & Lynch 2
Need for Speed World
Alpha Protocol
Blur
Split/Second
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction
Just Cause 2
Metro 2033

Again
  • FPS
  • Resolution
  • AA/AF
  • 1:1 crisp picture rendering with no upscaling blur & input lag
  • higher res textures
  • better texture filtering
  • better, higher polygonal meshes
  • better effects i.e. DX11
  • better physics
  • more precise controls
  • ability to be modded/improved
  • typical use of dedicated servers vs P2P online play

Quote:
Don't get me started with PhysX either. Havok, as proven with Uncharted 2, is tremendous and can be accomplished on consoles just as good if not better than most PhysX enabled games in their entirety. Oh Batman AA gets those stupid cloth banner things? LOL Nathan Drake is running away from a helicopter and EVERYTHING in the entire scene is reacting to the helicopter's movements down the tinniest of objects like stray paper bits. No competition.
Havok on consoles is not remotely as good as GPU accelerated PhysX. That's just reality. The only reason you think it looks so good is was because it was designed specifically with that games scenes & many of the physics are scripted. The simple fact is accurate & realistic physics takes a lot of computing power, there's no way to avoid it. Some people have been relegated to using a dedicated card for it just to increase their FPS, a card which singularly is more powerful than either consoles GPU in whole.

Quote:
I NEVER said it wont look significantly better on PC. Again - you're just making stuff up and it's getting stupid.
It does! Never denied that. But in Crysis 1 you have more or less giant parts of an island to explore and play with. Crysis 2 you get much tighter and enclosed city streets/squares similar to say - Killzone 3.
Well at least you're admitting that it will look a helluva lot better on PC. That's progress.

Quote:
But that was NEVER my argument. You've failed to grasp everything thats been repeated 20 times over. The fact is, most console games that get to PC don't look as fantastic as they could. I must've said that HOW MANY TIME NOW? How many more do I need to in order to get you to understand this is what Im saying? Do I need to make a gigantic image file with it?
Your argument (with me) started when you tried to imply i was mistaken in my thinking that console games look aged enough that they weren't worth getting excited over anymore. Which I'd like to point out once again, is impossible to prove wrong since it's entirely my own preference. You disagree with it, fine that's your own preference and prerogative. But what you've been attempting to do is form an argument that the game industry ON A WHOLE & PC Games ON A WHOLE have a negligible difference in Picture Quality from their console counterparts. Which I believe is bollix & what we have been disputing; the one issue which is quantifiable.

Quote:
I harp on Mass Effect 2 because people, even you prior to this discussion, would praise ME2 for being such a good PC game. Over the past month, at least 5 real arguments here on OCN alone about how ME2 on the PC doesnt look much different from the console version at all. AA and native resolution doesn't change the look of the game. It might make it look somewhat more better just by smoothing out lines, but other things that COULD HAVE been improved but werent for no real reason makes it look exactly the consoles. I've had to have repeated this so many times now, in so many different ways, that it's beginning to hurt. Just stop now.
How do you know what I would do or say "prior to this discussion"? Are you a time traveler who also has the ability to go to alternate realities? I never said anything of the sort about ME2 having mind blowing graphics & never even mentioned it period until you decided to trumpet it as the spearpoint of your argument. If I was going to use some game as an example I'd be using Crysis, Civ 5, Just Cause 2, Bioshock, Shattered Horizon, Metro 2033, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., F.E.A.R., L4D2, etc.. Even HL2 w/ it's old engine blows away everything on any console when you install the Cinematic Mod

Quote:
By not having the upscaling enabled - I mean I dont have my TV or my reciever have upscaling turned on. I let the console hardware do it however the developers intend for it. Games like Uncharted for example have very different ways on upscaling depending on how your setup is done and it can lead to a difference. Read the DF article I believe on Uncharted 1 and 2. The developers either have their game output 720p to be upscaled by either the console or the TV, I just let the game do whatever it wants to do.

And your entire sub-720p rendered thing makes no sense. You have total control on upscaling. You can tell your console hardware to not output 1080p and your TV not to upscale it either.
Well, no matter what you're doing you have scaling going on. You said "I generally have most of my games that I have control over always force 720p no matter what TV Im using. " which means that unless you run your 1080p in 1:1 mode (which would cause a big black border) your TV is doing the upscaling. & TVs generally have the crappy Genesis scalars. So you are doing scaling. If on the other hand you're letting the console do it then what scaling you get could be better or worse. If you let your 360 do it, it will generally be better than letting your TV do it. If you let your PS3 do it, it could be worse. Take Uncharted for example (since you are using it as your example), there was an option to force 1080p, this was done via the game software scaling it. However it was only included for compatibily at the time because Sony had been getting a TON of flak for a while from people who had TVs which would only accept 1080i signals for HD which sony didn't support for many games due to the PS3 not having a real scaler (forcing them to run them in SD). The developer (Naughty Dog) even said in a blog post on the PS3's official blog at the time that they would discourage anyone from using it unless they have to, because it incurred a noticeable FPS hit.

As for the double-scaling. There is absolutely nothing you can do to stop that. Most console games are rendered sub-720p whether at 640p, 600p, or at some other odd resolution (fighting games for some reason many times render at a weird 4:3 res) and are scaled in the game's software to 720p. That's before it even hits the frame buffer. After it hits the frame buffer you get the second scale. Whether its from your console or your amp or your TV, it's going to be a second scale.

Quote:
I'm aware of all of this. Waste of time. My point to you is that the blur isn't as effecting as you make it out to be. Most of the time, upscaling is done very well by the console itself either hardware or software wise.
If you're aware of it then you wouldn't be saying stuff like "TV upscaling aside which not everyone has enabled, I generally have most of my games that I have control over always force 720p no matter what TV Im using. Also - you act as if the upscaling of the TV is terrible, and thats not true at all."
  1. TV upscaling isn't very good in general & especially not for games where they're already scaled once usually & lower res; not to mention the input lag. Unlike TV where input lag is imperceptible because you're not interacting.
  2. I would guess 99.999% of console gamers have scaling enabled which i would consider close enough to "everyone"

Quote:
Nope. Because - look at those buildings in the far back of the third screenshot in comparison to the second screenshot. The one in the second screenshot look alot better but thats only because in the third screenshot - they're totally different buildings in a totally different level with a totally different distance from them with totally different landscapes to boot.

Your analogy of the rose and daisy is so stupid, I couldnt even laugh at it. You dont even realize how much of a difference between 640x480 and 5MP is clearly.
Someone's never heard of an allegory before.

Quote:
I had all of this seperated up and ready to respond to. Do for alot of them, but the majority of the time you either completely misquoted me, misunderstood me, or are going places that you don't even have anything to do with what I said - was saying - or has said. Alot of it also would just be repeating what I've been saying over the past couple pages over and over to you, which would be pointless. This entire thing as been pointless - you still dont even remember what the initial argument was about. You've been acting like I've been saying that consoles look better than PC but yet I've never said anything remotely similar.
When have I even insinuated that you think consoles look BETTER than PC? I ask you for just one, just one example verbatim. I'll just copypasta what I typed earlier in this reply if you think I'm not fully aware of why you started this argument.

me -> "Your argument (with me) started when you tried to imply i was mistaken in my thinking that console games look aged enough that they weren't worth getting excited over anymore. Which I'd like to point out once again, is impossible to prove wrong since it's entirely my own preference. You disagree with it, fine that's your own preference and prerogative. But what you've been attempting to do is form an argument that the game industry ON A WHOLE & PC Games ON A WHOLE have a negligible difference in Picture Quality from their console counterparts. Which I believe is bollix & what we have been disputing; the one issue which is quantifiable."

Quote:
It's just plain sad to think you wasted all your time typing all this up because you just completely ignored what I said. Or are grasping at straws like the IGN thing - that was quite funny.
if you say so, i guess i'm just a sad sad man. a sad sad man who doesn't understand anything. it's really a sad situation when you think about it.

Quote:
You can think whatever you want to think dude. But you're fooling yourself if the games that are out on the PC right now in comparison to the SAME games on the consoles are that much more better. You've forgotten what good actually looks like and are under the false belief that what you have right now on your precious PC is actually fantastic graphics, meanwhile they can do a whole lot more. Maybe with the slew of upcoming games, it'll hit you. Then again, judging by the way you've managed to twist everything to be something it isn't: perhaps not.
Ok dude, I'll think whatever I want. Thanks for letting me. I'm glad that you finally are giving me permission to have my own preference.


p.s. I saw this Face-Off: Bulletstorm on a different thread http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/95...l#post12536333& read the article; thought this little bit from the article might interest you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Foundry Bulletstorm PC quote
Moving on to the PC game and it's clear that there's a pretty colossal visual leap over what we see on console. Geometry levels appear to be much the same, but everything else can be turned up to 11. The most impactful change is to the quality of the textures, but just about all of the key effects - including the light shafts - are significantly upgraded over what we see on the Xbox 360 version of the game.

Indeed, even in the most basic like-for-like shots we see a generally more smoother, richer look to the game, suggesting that perhaps Epic is operating with a higher precision framebuffer format than they are in the console versions.

Let's re-run our initial head-to-head comparison, this time pitting the Xbox 360 version against the PC game. If you'd rather compare the PS3 and PC versions of Bulletstorm, we've got that covered too.

The PC version also one-ups the console games by offering support for up to 8x anti-aliasing without recourse to the GPU control panel - something of a rarity in PC UE3 titles, and something that definitely helps in refining the overall look of the game. Just about all the major effects appear to have been upgraded to some extent; particles appear to be more voluminous on PC, motion blur operates with more samples, and the light shaft effect has a significantly higher precision compared to its Xbox 360 counterpart.

Again we get the impression that this tech does have quite a significant impact on the overall look of the outdoor scenes. Let's revisit the previous comparison screenshots we ran illustrating the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of this tech, and this time put the PC version up against the 360 game.

For games enthusiasts, one of the most attractive features of PC gaming is the ability to spec out your own rig, enabling users to power past the limitations of the five-year-old consoles with new and more powerful tech. As a fast action arcade shooter, Bulletstorm benefits significantly from being run at 60 frames per second as opposed to the 30FPS seen in the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, as we'll discuss later. To get this level of performance, we'd recommend a quad-core CPU and something along the lines of an NVIDIA GTX460 to ensure top-level performance, but even lower end GPUs should still easily outstrip console quality and frame-rate.

It's also good to see Epic and People Can Fly recognising that PC players run their games at much higher resolutions than the standard console 720p, including much higher quality artwork in the PC version to allow the game to scale up more pleasantly to 1080p and beyond. Bulletstorm is a really good-looking release on console, but it's safe to say that the visual upgrade on PC can often make a huge difference. NVIDIA 3D Vision support is also included to boot, although the latest driver to provide the optimum experience wasn't yet available when we put this piece together.

Bulletstorm not only looks better on PC, but the gameplay feels so much more enjoyable. While it's a colossal amount of fun on the consoles, first impressions of the PC version are best summed up with simply one word: wow. What is immediately clear is that the interface with the player feels much more refined. Of course, this is a PC first-person shooter, so there is an immediate advantage, too: it's difficult to find a game where the traditional mouse and keys combo doesn't significantly outperform the consoles' joypads, and Bulletstorm is no exception.

But it goes deeper than that. Play the PC game with an Xbox 360 joypad and Bulletstorm still feels so much more responsive. If there is one complaint with the game on console, it's that the analogue sticks feel very, very light and there's no real sense of inertia - but there definitely is input latency. Take that same control system onto PC where you can run the game at 60Hz and the feedback you get back from the pad feels simply sublime.

It's something we can readily quantify by studying the latency of the controller on all three platforms in an identical situation. In this case, we're kicking off the desert level in Echoes mode, and firing off the default weapon. The footage is captured and analysed while at the same time a 60FPS camera is recording both the screen and our Ben Heck latency controller monitor board.

As regular Digital Foundry readers will know, the process of measuring input lag is fairly straightforward. The Ben Heck board lights up an LED when a button is pressed, while the 60FPS camera allows us to literally count the frames until the action kicks off on-screen. Factor out the lag from our calibrated Dell monitor and we are left with the input lag measurement. The footage is also captured and analysed to ensure that the game is running in optimum conditions (30FPS on console, 60FPS on PC).

The results speak for themselves.

A measurement of 133ms on console is a touch on the high side, but it does corroborate the feeling that Bulletstorm isn't quite as responsive as you'd want it to be. In stark comparison, the same test on PC gives us a significantly reduced 83ms: not the best response from a v-synced 60Hz game, but still a big improvement.

On joypad, the game simply feels that much better to play because your control inputs translate into action that much more quickly - Bulletstorm becomes a state-of-the-art arcade-style shooter, with something approaching old-skool arcade levels of response. Switch to mouse and keyboard and all the advantages of that control scheme, combined with the lower latency, adds immeasurably to the enjoyment of the gameplay.

Epic and People Can Fly really deserve plenty of plaudits for the care and attention that has gone into the PC version of Bulletstorm. While it is a title that has clearly been designed to appeal primarily to console gamers, the execution on PC is nigh-on flawless. A lot of that is down to the core architecture in Unreal Engine 3 simply providing a superior level of visual effects when run on PC, of course. However, the developers have recognised that enthusiast PC players run their games at much higher resolutions than console-standard 720p. Higher resolutions demand higher quality art and People Can Fly has delivered.

In conclusion, the PC version of Bulletstorm is clearly the pick of the bunch by quite a margin, but obviously most of the game's audience will be found on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and for the players out there who own both machines, the 360 game is the one to buy. Better visuals and more consistent performance give it the edge.
edit: added a comparison screenshot, since you love those



Edited by pale_neon - 2/26/11 at 6:51pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3R eVGA GTX 560 Ti 4GB Patriot Viper II DDR2 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 64MB 7200 RPM Lite-On 22X DVD+/-RW XP Pro, Windows 7 Ultimate, Ubuntu Lucid Lynx Samsung UN46B8000 240Hz LED 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Elite PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer Mantis Speed 
  hide details  
Reply
post #117 of 118
I wasnt even going to come back and read any responses, but I noticed you bothered replying and decided to be nice and at least give your post a skim. A read a little here and there, skimmed the most part. Im not going to sit and read through your post entirely, piece it bit by bit, and argue each and every thing. I can very well do so, but it's 4:30AM and I have no intention on coming back and continuing this. You can't seem to grasp the argument I made, you twisted it into something different, and beyond that even after restating what I had made - you continue to go on like Im saying that console games look better than PC games. Or even just that console games look the same as PC games. My argument was, has been, still is, and will be that console ports to the PC do not look as good as everyone makes them out to be. More AA and better native resolution DO improve the way the game looks but no where near as significantly as anyone makes it out to be. I said in one of my original posts "little to no difference". By that I meant - you're just making edges look nicer, you're not making a game look better significantly enough. The only time when it does is when the developer bothers to make significant changes - texture resolution, better or more effects, ect.

Things like "Well at least you're admitting that it will look a helluva lot better on PC. That's progress" are exactly what I mean by you just loose what we're actually arguing over throughout your posts. THAT IS EXACTLY IT- most games don't look "a helluva lot better on PC" as you insist they do. The difference between console Crysis 2 and PC Crysis 2 is dramatic, this you didn't need to be a genie to figure out was going to happen. That isn't the case with 3/4 of the games on PC as compared to their console counterparts. For the most part, they all look the same to an extent or similar. Rarely do they look so much dramatically better.

You keep insistently arguing over stupid little things like me "nitpicking" with certain games like ME2. I'm going to sit here and keep bringing up ME2 because it is, for the 100th time, one of the biggest PC games and it is almost always brought up in a PC vs console debate. It also happens to be the best game to clearly display my point so Im going to keep using it whether you like it or not.
Another "stupid little thing" to argue over that's irrelevant is that you're really going to sit here and make a fuss about alot and a lot? Are you kidding me? Exactly what I meant before - grasping at straws with the IGN thing. It's just plain sad. How is my grammar so bad between alot and a lot? Get a grip please. I couldn't read half your post even if I wanted to because of the varying text sizes toward the end. Should I rant/rave about that and disregard anything you said? I guess I should because you certainly did especially with the IGN stuff. Nice to just ignore what I said and pass it off. So what if it's a nice place to quickly grab a review? It has NOTHING to do with what you say or were trying to make a point out of with "scores". Nor does it have anything to do with you bringing up games like Bionic Commando Rearmed, Breach, or EA Sports Active trying to prove that Black Ops is better looking game because of some stupid, unjustified score/number. You say I nitpick ALOT? Oh noez whatevah shall i d0000.

On the case of Bullestorm - Im glad you found a game that actually looks significantly better on the PC. It has a HUGE difference between the PC and the console version. Claps to you. It seems you believe, and based on the really stupid text size and emoticon spam, that you've somehow defeated my point. Which again, leads me back to the first thing I said in this post, you don't even know the argument being made.
I took the two pictures you gave, put them in separate tabs, and flashed them back and fourth. Best way to compare imo.
It's clear that there are massive differences between the two. The 360 version is completely blurred all over and there is alot (OH IM SORRY A LOT) of detail missing (not just because of the blurr either) on alot (OH IM SORRY A LOT) of objects including the characters and background models. I will say this - AA on the 360 isn't too bad in that screenshot. Even you must admit that Im sure.
BUT - lets go back to ME2, Dead Space 2, and even Bad Company 2. The difference between those 3 games and the PC version of them are NOTHING like that. There is a massive jump in clarity with the 360 and PC version of Bulletstorm. Is that same clarity difference present in those 3 other games? Not even close. That's the point Im trying to make. The differences between alot (OH IM SORRY A LOT) of games are not significant even slightly when they should be, if consoles are so inferior as many claim they are including you. And it isn't just those 3 games - alot (OH IM SORRY A LOT) of the games you listed yourself are for the most part in the same category. The majority you listed do not have anywhere near as many differences as Bulletstorm and Black Ops do.
Edited by OmegaNemesis28 - 2/27/11 at 2:41am
Nemesis NE-α
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790k (Devil's Canyon) AsRock Z97 Extreme 4 Visiontek AMD 6990 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 840 XSPC Raystorm Windows 8.1 Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Ducky Blue Overclock.net Themed Mechanical Keyb... Corsair Silver 1kw  
CaseMouseAudio
Case Labs TH10 Logitech G502 Logitech 5.1 speakers w/ Onkyo Receiver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon W3520 i7 4.0ghz EVGA X58 Classified Visiontek 6990 GSkill 6GB DDR3 Pi 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD ; 2x 1TB ; 2x 2TB Samsung BluRay Burner Windows 7 Ultimate 64x 3x Dell U2311H 23" 1080p IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard SilverStone Strider 1000w Modular Power Supply Lian Li V2000 Plus Logitech G9 Gaming Laser Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Cyba Sniper Tracer (Acrylic Glass) 
  hide details  
Reply
Nemesis NE-α
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 4790k (Devil's Canyon) AsRock Z97 Extreme 4 Visiontek AMD 6990 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 840 XSPC Raystorm Windows 8.1 Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Dell U2311H 1920x1080 IPS Ducky Blue Overclock.net Themed Mechanical Keyb... Corsair Silver 1kw  
CaseMouseAudio
Case Labs TH10 Logitech G502 Logitech 5.1 speakers w/ Onkyo Receiver 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Xeon W3520 i7 4.0ghz EVGA X58 Classified Visiontek 6990 GSkill 6GB DDR3 Pi 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x OCZ Vertex 60GB SSD ; 2x 1TB ; 2x 2TB Samsung BluRay Burner Windows 7 Ultimate 64x 3x Dell U2311H 23" 1080p IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Gaming Keyboard SilverStone Strider 1000w Modular Power Supply Lian Li V2000 Plus Logitech G9 Gaming Laser Mouse 
Mouse Pad
Cyba Sniper Tracer (Acrylic Glass) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmegaNemesis28 View Post
Subjective - 30 to 60 FPS to me makes little to no difference. 60FPS can be smoother, sure, but Im not sensitive to it at all like alot of people are so anal about.
I could agree with you... If I was using a controller. Keyboard and mouse, not so much Framerate and vsync (gross) actually play a big role in total responsiveness of your cursor, although since a controller isn't as precise I can understand that it's not going to make much of a difference when you account for every little detail including the 14ms input lag the PS3 controller puts off due to bluetooth.

PC wise, there's no way in hell I'm going to take a 60hz LCD @1080p over a 8x6 CRT that's capable of 100hz if it means winning prize money
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [CVG]Killzone 3 doesn't max out PS3 - Guerrilla