Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Imo, raw power is no longer a must. I don't want games to look more "realistic", I want them to have great art styles that are consistent in themselves and give me a great feeling. Sadly, "realism" today means mainly adding more brown into moder military shooters.

I'll still stick to my pc, so meh, don't care much either way. The most it affects me is that I need to upgrade my pc less frequently. So I'll buy new hardware every 4 years instead of every 3 or so?

He is right but he is also wrong.
He is right that the PC will outperform the PS4 or any other console but it matters little.
Many games are made for consoles because that is where they sell. If you compare game sales between a console and a PC, the PC business can be deemed almost as charity.
UbiSoft threatened the PC players several times with dropping support of the PC due to laughable bad sales.
CryTek who is basically the only company to challenge the top tier hardware these days is making a huge loss on every Crysis they put out there. They don't really care because their games are not their real product but only a prove of concept for their 3D engine. (So are the titles of id or Epic)
And even these guys had to make their engine run on consoles in the end to adapt to the market.
Boast about your PC specs all you want, I too own a very powerful PC and is my preferred platform these days, but for the average publisher this is not a platform they could focus on.
Mind you I'm not saying there is no business to be made on the PC. Valve is doing well and so is Blizzard or CD Project. But lets also be honest these are more or less the exception to the rule. Unless you cater towards a niche and/or keep your budget in check, therefore limiting how much you can use the hardware, it is rather hard to be profitable on the PC. (Blizzards games are always made with a not powerful PC in mind: Look at WoW, D3 or SC2, it has to run in South Korean internet cafès)
Valve is doing great due to Steam which is basically a console platform on the PC and still highly regarded by many (not me). Blizzard has WoW still paying most of their bills and CD Project is keeping their budgets low due to their location in a low cost country.
You can't expect everyone going these roads and being successful, it is not like they haven't tried: Uplay, Origin, SW:ToR and relocating Devs on a large scale to locations with tax advantages e.g. Montreal.
If your a publisher and you want to produce a game with high production value the only option is to release to the consoles. You can't pour 20+ Million into a game that may only sell 500k units. You need sales in the millions and to get that on the PC is very, very hard.
Deep Down and the new Killzone that where shown for the PS4 looked better than anything I currently run on my PC and my PC is supposed to be more powerful than the PS4 already. But it does not matter because there is no software for all that power I have.
Crysis may be more advanced technology wise (I don't know) but tbh it does not show. I'm wowed visually by Deep Down not so much Crysis. Maybe because I know Crysis is just a FPS and Deep Down could be anything in my omagaination atm.

I'm glad the new consoles are in sight. And I hope they are designed in a way that allows the companies involved to turn a profit in less time even if it means that they are not as powerful as they could be. I too think this cycle was too long but it was that long because Sony and Microsoft put out their hardware with a loss in the first place and that was due to the demand of players to get a stronger hardware.
Well that backfired in the long run didn't it?

Well lets see what the PS4 will costs I doubt that they will repeat their 599$ and 499$ mistake of the PS3. Therefore I say it may be 399$.

Hammeroj:

008Zulu:
Console hardware isn't really relevant is it? I mean, despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles.

Conversely, just imagine how much better Uncharted, Heavy Rain or Halo would work/look on PCs.

Console hardware is really relevant. I don't know why you'd say it's irrelevant.

"despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles."

You don't need a lot of processor power if you know how to use what you have efficiently.

No,I'll have to disagree with him.
While ps4 can't top the fastest pcs of today,it isn't really similar to a 'low end'.
I'd call it comparable to a medium/mainstream performance PC.
It seems the power of its graphics card sits somewhere between AMD HD 7850 and AMD HD 7870.
That's on the middle of the performance spectrum. Sure there are more powerful cards,as there are also weaker cards.
My thinking is that cards from 1$ to 100$ are low end,from 101$ to 249$ medium,and from 250$ and up high end.

image

So yeah, I can't really say I give much of a fuck about this sort of shit, so long as the games themselves that are on the system are good quality. And by that I mean that they're fun or engaging etc not that they are shiny.

008Zulu:
"despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles."

You don't need a lot of processor power if you know how to use what you have efficiently.

Hm... So if I call Shadow of the Colossus remarkable, that makes the specs of PS2 irrelevant?

Listen, you can talk about efficiency all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the PS3 and the Xbox360 can barely run games at 720p or 60fps; let alone both, let alone at a resolution that has actually been the standard for several years now, let alone with shaders worth a crap, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone using any other technology that has been around for ages; let alone without copious and long loading screens, let along without the corridor design paradigm. Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

There are things they simply cannot do, I'm sure you have an imagination capable of pondering such scenarios.

008Zulu:

Hammeroj:

008Zulu:
Console hardware isn't really relevant is it? I mean, despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles.

Conversely, just imagine how much better Uncharted, Heavy Rain or Halo would work/look on PCs.

Console hardware is really relevant. I don't know why you'd say it's irrelevant.

"despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles."

You don't need a lot of processor power if you know how to use what you have efficiently.

Exactly, which is why it's so great that the optimization of engines like unreal engine applies 100% to PC too. Grab a 360 esque PC (go for a ~2.5-3GHz C2D and a 8600GT since they're roughly in the ballpark) and it will play games like a 360 does (720p, 30fps, mostly low settings on textures ect. with some mediums on effects) pretty much without fail really (some games will even look better, like source engine ones will run sublime on it compared to a 360). I know that breaks the whole fallacy of 'optimization makes a console as good as a much more powerful PC' but myths deserve to be busted.

What has held back the difference of PC and console games in terms of 'the games look the same' is youtube. Youtube is blurry, 30fps and 720p (1080p videos are marginally better but still blurry). Console gaming is blurry, 30fps, and 720p. PC gaming looks prettier, crisper, smoother ect. without any effort being made by the dev at all, but is displayed with a blurry, 30fps, 720p video. When work is put into a PC version, it can look amazing, but you'll never see that properly in a youtube video. Hell, even battlefield 3 doesn't look much different on youtube and that game looks insanely good at times on the PC (people who *have* to have a console are in for a treat when battlefield 4 on PS4 gives you a glimpse of what we've had on PC with BF3). It's also why the PS4 launch videos didn't look that much better than current gen games either from our perspective.

Oh great, exactly what we needed. Another fucking console war. Only this time it's been console players and PC supporters.

Also, the guy's comments sound like something that might have been relevant in 2004. Nowadays when the budgets of the biggest releases rival those of your average Michael Bay flick and we're constantly talking about how the prices of games are approaching the breaking point, the guy still wants to "harness the power of newer GPUs for more performance and to take advantage of newer, modern graphics technologies." More pixels! More polygons! More lighting effects! Sharper textures! More surface! Screw actual content, we need to make it as shiny as possible!!!

Compared to my PC I didn't think the stats were that impressive at all. But I play consoles for the exclusives not for the graphics.

bartholen:
Oh great, exactly what we needed. Another fucking console war. Only this time it's been console players and PC supporters.

Also, the guy's comments sound like something that might have been relevant in 2004. Nowadays when the budgets of the biggest releases rival those of your average Michael Bay flick and we're constantly talking about how the prices of games are approaching the breaking point, the guy still wants to "harness the power of newer GPUs for more performance and to take advantage of newer, modern graphics technologies." More pixels! More polygons! More lighting effects! Sharper textures! More surface! Screw actual content, we need to make it as shiny as possible!!!

The advantage of power is that it's easier to make pretty or more interactive games. Compare the graphics of small productions today versus small productions on roughly the same budget 5 or 10 years ago for example. If anything the spiraling costs of AAA production is amplified by stagnant console tech requiring thousands of man hours of cutting down and squeezing everything into the limited performance envelope (this also benefits PC, but bleh, it doesn't help developers at all, which is why console devs are going bankrupt left, right, and centre, whilst PC centric devs seem to do fine). That's not just visuals, that's everything in a game.

So a bump in performance makes it easier and cheaper for developers to make the same standard of game.

Oltsu:

Charcharo:
A low end PC it wont be. Remember, so far all consoles are usually capable of doing a decent amount more gaming than a similar PC. With that said, very powerful it is not. Still, I really hope it has a decent GPU :P . It should be able to survive at least 5 years.

The kind of PC hardware required to run games at med-low settings at 720p and 30fps is surprisingly low-end. People often forget that PC gamers do usually run their games at higher resolutions, settings, etc. If you reduce those to console levels the optimization isn't that clear anymore at all.

I know that, I am a PC only user too, and am not planning on buying such type of a console in the near/not near future, because of how expensive the damned things actually end up being. Still, a console can usually achieve more than a hardware-wise comparable PC when it comes down to gaming. The Xbox/PS3 are running Crysis 3 on settings below low, true, but a comparable hardware-wise PC would not be able to do even that . Now, of coarse the majority of computers now are MUCH more powerful than such a PC. Still I just hope this new "generation" is decent enough to last some 5 years so that I can upgrade cheaply yet again...

bartholen:
Oh great, exactly what we needed. Another fucking console war. Only this time it's been console players and PC supporters.

Also, the guy's comments sound like something that might have been relevant in 2004. Nowadays when the budgets of the biggest releases rival those of your average Michael Bay flick and we're constantly talking about how the prices of games are approaching the breaking point, the guy still wants to "harness the power of newer GPUs for more performance and to take advantage of newer, modern graphics technologies." More pixels! More polygons! More lighting effects! Sharper textures! More surface! Screw actual content, we need to make it as shiny as possible!!!

There's more to good specs than just pretty graphics.

Better specs enable developers to make games that are both different and interesting while maintaining some graphical fidelity. Things like better view distance, more characters per screen, better AI and it goes on and on and on.

spartandude:
[quote="rkaycom" post="7.403629.16688756"]

Im not going to lie mate, but SC2 on ultra isnt the most demanding thing out there, by a long shot
dont get me wrong thats a good value pc but yh being able to play Star Craft 2 on ultra isnt a major show of power

He said Heart of the Swarm. It has improved graphics and is more demanding than other games. I can run BF3 on high@60fps, which gets to 30-40fps during tough battles. In HotS I get 9-15fps in tough battles on medium. I played Wings of Liberty on High @ 60fps. Running HotS on Ultra @ 60fps is actually as demanding as new games get.

bartholen:
Oh great, exactly what we needed. Another fucking console war. Only this time it's been console players and PC supporters.

Also, the guy's comments sound like something that might have been relevant in 2004. Nowadays when the budgets of the biggest releases rival those of your average Michael Bay flick and we're constantly talking about how the prices of games are approaching the breaking point, the guy still wants to "harness the power of newer GPUs for more performance and to take advantage of newer, modern graphics technologies." More pixels! More polygons! More lighting effects! Sharper textures! More surface! Screw actual content, we need to make it as shiny as possible!!!

Better tools allow you to do more things, and make the old things easier. Somebody already pointed this out, but with a better set of hardware there's less reason to downscale textures to absurd levels, or to have to fuck around with particular animations for weeks on end to fit as much of them as possible (and then have to still cut down on them at the end, like in ME3), or do a million other things with texture streaming, NPCs on screen and practically whatever you can think of. To put it bluntly, better hardware makes development more cost efficient every time.

Whether short-sighted game developers (or publishers) decide to take the hammer and bash their own head in with it is frankly not much of my concern. And to the extent that it is, it would clear away a little of the incompetence within the industry and I'm all for that.

Ultratwinkie:

Absolutionis:
The fact that Nvidia lost the PS4 bid to their rival doesn't really bode well for Nvidia trash-talking the PS4 like this. The whole thing comes off as something as tactful as EA tends to do in Press Releases.

Sony didn't want to pay a lot of money. They said this for years because they can't afford it.

This is especially true if Sony were set on using a SoC/APU processor because... well, Intel graphics tech is still too far behind the curve and nVidia GPGPUs (CUDA cores) cost a bundle. That left whatever AMD was willing to offer for the price...

Well, okay, they could have gone with ARM based SoCs but that's smartphone/tablet tech and it's currently the fastest developing tech around. Doesn't seem a good idea to put out a console that could, within 2 years, be outstripped by phones, tablets and cheap Android powered consoles.

Plus, out of AMD, Intel and nVidia it's AMD that really needs the financial shot in the arm that this sort of component contract can bring.

The Comfy Chair:
The advantage of power is that it's easier to make pretty or more interactive games.

The real advantage to raw computing power in game dev is not having to spend millions optimising your game.

RhombusHatesYou:

The Comfy Chair:
The advantage of power is that it's easier to make pretty or more interactive games.

The real advantage to raw computing power in game dev is not having to spend millions optimising your game.

Yep, i mentioned that :D

The Comfy Chair:
If anything the spiraling costs of AAA production is amplified by stagnant console tech requiring thousands of man hours of cutting down and squeezing everything into the limited performance envelope (this also benefits PC, but bleh, it doesn't help developers at all, which is why console devs are going bankrupt left, right, and centre, whilst PC centric devs seem to do fine). That's not just visuals, that's everything in a game.

It's why the Witcher 2 on PC had a dev cost of around $10m or so, but looks better than any console game ever made in terms of graphical oomph, whilst also being a very deep game. Sure, it was a bit of a performance hog on max settings, but that doesn't matter so much. I'd rather have a very pretty, complex game than one that runs a bit better but had to sacrifice the former two.

In the end, we can upgrade hardware, we can't get a sequel to a game if the studio goes bankrupt optimizing.

Well, the Xbox 360 GPU was about as powerful as a 7800 or 7900gt. Comparing that to the hit at the time on PCs, the 8800gtx, the console GPU had about 1/3 the FPS of the later in power. However, the console still ran games optimized for it at decent FPS.

So yeah, the guy is being an idiot and just really doesn't like the fact that they lost out on a good manufacturing deal. Truth be told I think Nvidia is in a pretty hard spot at the moment, as AMD is providing a much better value with their top end GPUs than Nvidia is (assuming AMD doesn't make the mistake of hardware locking the damn voltage on newer 7970s that aren't GHZ edition). Likewise, as much as project shield is a good product and will fill a niche, the PS4 is going to be making a bigger splash on the market than what essentially equates to the PC equivalent of a Wii U tablet controller (or eventually the PS Vita).

As far as optimization goes: it's an expensive business, but the fact that the system now uses a sensible hardware architecture, it shouldn't be as difficult to scale things back for the console.

Azaraxzealot:
Seems like he is openly pandering to the stereotypical PC elitist.

That's exactly what he's doing. Nvidia's had a couple years to fix one issue with its cards crashing TF2, and hasn't managed even that. Before they start throwing stones, they should fix their glass houses. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1774666

Colt47:
Well, the Xbox 360 GPU was about as powerful as a 7800 or 7900gt. Comparing that to the hit at the time on PCs, the 8800gtx, the console GPU had about 1/3 the FPS of the later in power. However, the console still ran games optimized for it at decent FPS.

So yeah, the guy is being an idiot and just really doesn't like the fact that they lost out on a good manufacturing deal. Truth be told I think Nvidia is in a pretty hard spot at the moment, as AMD is providing a much better value with their top end GPUs than Nvidia is (assuming AMD doesn't make the mistake of hardware locking the damn voltage on newer 7970s that aren't GHZ edition). Likewise, as much as project shield is a good product and will fill a niche, the PS4 is going to be making a bigger splash on the market than what essentially equates to the PC equivalent of a Wii U tablet controller (or eventually the PS Vita).

You're forgetting the 8800GTX could run those games on 1920x1080, and still can run games like mass effect 3 (that didn't do anything special with the PC version) at that resolution perfectly fine with high settings. It's still a good workhorse today, and that's because of the consoles pinning down the minimum specs. The 360 runs game like a 8600GT does (worse, in fact, with some engines like source which are tailored more for PC), which is roughly 7800/900GT performance. So optimization really didn't account for much.

P.S. Yes, the HD7970 is a beastly card, and i love all the game offers AMD are doing recently :D When the gtx670 came out nvidia were in a good place this gen at the higher end, but they never followed up with cuts after AMD reduced the price of the HD7950/70.

And now I'm gonna tell you why this is what nvidia thinks. You see, the PS4 and the Nextbox will use AMD's hardware. AMD's CPU and AMD's GPU. So the architecture is similar to that of a PC. In theory that means that porting from PS4 to PC will be easier. Also in theory, this means that porting to AMD powered PC is easier than porting to Nvidia GPU powered PC. This puts a lot of pressure on Nvidia. It puts some on Intel as well, seeing how they have their own line of CPU's.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Nvidia and Intel team up to officially support as many PC exclusive titles as they possibly can once next-gen consoles hit the market.

The Comfy Chair:

Colt47:
Well, the Xbox 360 GPU was about as powerful as a 7800 or 7900gt. Comparing that to the hit at the time on PCs, the 8800gtx, the console GPU had about 1/3 the FPS of the later in power. However, the console still ran games optimized for it at decent FPS.

So yeah, the guy is being an idiot and just really doesn't like the fact that they lost out on a good manufacturing deal. Truth be told I think Nvidia is in a pretty hard spot at the moment, as AMD is providing a much better value with their top end GPUs than Nvidia is (assuming AMD doesn't make the mistake of hardware locking the damn voltage on newer 7970s that aren't GHZ edition). Likewise, as much as project shield is a good product and will fill a niche, the PS4 is going to be making a bigger splash on the market than what essentially equates to the PC equivalent of a Wii U tablet controller (or eventually the PS Vita).

You're forgetting the 8800GTX could run those games on 1920x1080, and still can run games like mass effect 3 (that didn't do anything special with the PC version) at that resolution perfectly fine with high settings. It's still a good workhorse today, and that's because of the consoles pinning down the minimum specs.

P.S. Yes, the HD7970 is a beastly card, and i love all the game offers AMD are doing recently :D When the gtx670 came out nvidia were in a good place this gen at the higher end, but they never followed up with cuts after AMD reduced the price of the HD7950/70.

Yeah, that's the other thing. Consoles get the luxury of being optimized to run games at lower resolution since the typical TV is 720p compared to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. That's a huge difference in required processing power.

Ultratwinkie:

Evil Smurf:
My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

They wanted adequate money to perform a service! They didn't accept my small change!

ELITISM!

... yeah, we knew this already. The only people who take the specs of the PS4 as a super computer are fanboys who don't know anything about tech. Did anyone really expect a cheaply made console to beat the PC?

Well, he is being fairly elitist. A card that came out about a year ago that was top-end when it came out isn't going to be a horrible piece of hardware now, it's still going to be insane, graphics haven't gotten that much better in a year

There's also the argument that Nvidia may not have wanted the business, whilst AMD are currently scrabbling at anything they can get.

Nvidia seem to be shifting towards the mobile market at the moment, no doubt encouraged by the prevalence of the Tegra chip. They freely admit that they high end GPU market doesn't really make them much money, perhaps decided to go to negotiations with a set price that would make it 'worthwhile' for them, one they knew Sony wouldn't like. Whether Nvidia would actually sabotage their own contracts is pretty unlikely, but weirder things have happened.

AMDs success with the Wii may have made them more attractive too, they're much better than Nvidia at delivering to a price point.

Colt47:

The Comfy Chair:

Colt47:
Well, the Xbox 360 GPU was about as powerful as a 7800 or 7900gt. Comparing that to the hit at the time on PCs, the 8800gtx, the console GPU had about 1/3 the FPS of the later in power. However, the console still ran games optimized for it at decent FPS.

So yeah, the guy is being an idiot and just really doesn't like the fact that they lost out on a good manufacturing deal. Truth be told I think Nvidia is in a pretty hard spot at the moment, as AMD is providing a much better value with their top end GPUs than Nvidia is (assuming AMD doesn't make the mistake of hardware locking the damn voltage on newer 7970s that aren't GHZ edition). Likewise, as much as project shield is a good product and will fill a niche, the PS4 is going to be making a bigger splash on the market than what essentially equates to the PC equivalent of a Wii U tablet controller (or eventually the PS Vita).

You're forgetting the 8800GTX could run those games on 1920x1080, and still can run games like mass effect 3 (that didn't do anything special with the PC version) at that resolution perfectly fine with high settings. It's still a good workhorse today, and that's because of the consoles pinning down the minimum specs.

P.S. Yes, the HD7970 is a beastly card, and i love all the game offers AMD are doing recently :D When the gtx670 came out nvidia were in a good place this gen at the higher end, but they never followed up with cuts after AMD reduced the price of the HD7950/70.

Yeah, that's the other thing. Consoles get the luxury of being optimized to run games at lower resolution since the typical TV is 720p compared to 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. That's a huge difference in required processing power.

Pretty much, it's definitely the reason why some people think consoles kept up (they never did, it's just that when people say a PC game runs 'badly', it's running 'badly' at settings a console never came close to touching).

I wouldn't say that the games were 'optimized' for 720p though, that's kind of just what they can cope with (some games, like CoD, don't even do that). Optimization, for the most part, has applied pretty much wholesale to PC. This is because games aren't made with proprietary engines all the time that require work on making it work well on PC, 360, and PS3.

This is a good thing in the sense that ancient PCs can run games at console level. Admittedly no-one ever does, because setting everything to low is demoralizing, even if it's what consoles are 'set' to. However the bad thing about this, as mentioned previously in the thread, is the immense cost of the optimization has done a lot of damage to many studios.

Of course, this only matters if you're the kind of gamer that buys games to look at the pretty graphics and not, you know, PLAY them or anything like that.

Gearhead mk2:
Of course, this only matters if you're the kind of gamer that buys games to look at the pretty graphics and not, you know, PLAY them or anything like that.

Because as we all know, gameplay has never, ever been improved by hardware. Which is why no game has ever more complex gameplay than pong. That's all we ever play, prettied up pong. For example:

Call of pong: modern ballfare
Battlepong 3
Guild pong 2
The walking pong
Assassin's pong
Far pong 3
Pokepong
Deus pong

The list goes on.

(sorry, felt the need to assassinate your point, because it's a point that needed assassinating)

The Comfy Chair:

Gearhead mk2:
Of course, this only matters if you're the kind of gamer that buys games to look at the pretty graphics and not, you know, PLAY them or anything like that.

Because as we all know, gameplay has never, ever been improved by hardware. Which is why no game has ever more complex gameplay than pong. That's all we ever play, prettied up pong.

Look, at least for me, graphics don't matter. I know upgrading hardware has done a lot for games and the stuff we have now wouldn't have been possible a decade ago. But this constant focus on graphics really annoys me. I like modern graphics but I'd be fine with Gamecube or even PSP level graphics, so long as I can tell what's going on. If you're gonna upgrade your tech, do it so the games can run smooth and process a large world and a large number of dynamic AIs and setpeices instead of wasting all your time and money trying to render and ragdoll every last hair in Widescreen 1080p HD 3D or whatever buzzword is being used this week.

DrunkOnEstus:

Oltsu:
Snip

Overrated, yes, but still very much a factor, especially when developers are dealing with the very limited amount of RAM. RAM availablity was the reason the PS3 couldn't access the XMB in game for so long, and it's still laggy today. If PS3 games had to run over Windows they would look infinitely more like ass. You're absolutely right with your Uncharted 3 examples, though. I think that if there's PS4 ports of late-era PS3 titles, they should at least have AA that isn't a post-process filter, sharper shadows, and maybe more texture filtering. As I've said before though, the bottleneck will always be the HDTV. No matter what hardware you stick in a console, it'll never run games at 2560p or the resolutions of triple display setups due to the limitation of the living room display. Kind of reminds me of before the PS3 release, when they were touting dual HDMI ports and the ability to use two HDTVs.

It's a case of not caring about what you haven't experienced, basically that Uncharted 3 looks amazing if you've never played a game at 60 or 120 fps with 16xAA/AF at resolutions higher than 720p. Also of note is that not all of us are grpahics whores, and couldn't give less of a damn about any of the things that we're discussing right now, much to Nvidia's dismay : )

Its worst than that sometimes. Alot of the recent consle games aren't really 720p. Its run at a lower resolution and up scaled to fit. With a few post proscesses to pretty it up. Despite what some people on here seem to think, consles will never be more powerul that a middle to low end PC. Once again, video games will be held back by consles lack of powe. And lack of buttons.

Oh no, someone says something good about PCs and bad about consoles, he is clearly an elitist douchebag!!!

So many people seem not to know what an elitist actually is...

Daemascus:

DrunkOnEstus:

Oltsu:
Snip

Overrated, yes, but still very much a factor, especially when developers are dealing with the very limited amount of RAM. RAM availablity was the reason the PS3 couldn't access the XMB in game for so long, and it's still laggy today. If PS3 games had to run over Windows they would look infinitely more like ass. You're absolutely right with your Uncharted 3 examples, though. I think that if there's PS4 ports of late-era PS3 titles, they should at least have AA that isn't a post-process filter, sharper shadows, and maybe more texture filtering. As I've said before though, the bottleneck will always be the HDTV. No matter what hardware you stick in a console, it'll never run games at 2560p or the resolutions of triple display setups due to the limitation of the living room display. Kind of reminds me of before the PS3 release, when they were touting dual HDMI ports and the ability to use two HDTVs.

It's a case of not caring about what you haven't experienced, basically that Uncharted 3 looks amazing if you've never played a game at 60 or 120 fps with 16xAA/AF at resolutions higher than 720p. Also of note is that not all of us are grpahics whores, and couldn't give less of a damn about any of the things that we're discussing right now, much to Nvidia's dismay : )

Its worst than that sometimes. Alot of the recent consle games aren't really 720p. Its run at a lower resolution and up scaled to fit. With a few post proscesses to pretty it up. Despite what some people on here seem to think, consles will never be more powerul that a middle to low end PC. Once again, video games will be held back by consles lack of powe. And lack of buttons.

The way people talk about optimization for consoles in this thread, it's making it sound like consoles are where gaming companies go to die.

TheKasp:
Oh no, someone says something good about PCs and bad about consoles, he is clearly an elitist douchebag!!!

So many people seem not to know what an elitist actually is...

They know perfectly well what it is. It's a buzzword that doesn't really say anything meaningful but makes one appear to have a moral high ground.

Colt47:
The way people talk about optimization for consoles in this thread, it's making it sound like consoles are where gaming companies go to die.

It's not that bad, it's where gaming companies go to stagnate and settle for less (in terms of the quality of their games) in order to appeal to a larger demographic.

Gearhead mk2:

The Comfy Chair:

Gearhead mk2:
Of course, this only matters if you're the kind of gamer that buys games to look at the pretty graphics and not, you know, PLAY them or anything like that.

Because as we all know, gameplay has never, ever been improved by hardware. Which is why no game has ever more complex gameplay than pong. That's all we ever play, prettied up pong.

Look, at least for me, graphics don't matter. I know upgrading hardware has done a lot for games and the stuff we have now wouldn't have been possible a decade ago. But this constant focus on graphics really annoys me. I like modern graphics but I'd be fine with Gamecube or even PSP level graphics, so long as I can tell what's going on. If you're gonna upgrade your tech, do it so the games can run smooth and process a large world and a large number of dynamic AIs and setpeices instead of wasting all your time and money trying to render and ragdoll every last hair in Widescreen 1080p HD 3D or whatever buzzword is being used this week.

I agree 100% :) Which is why it depresses me the PS4 has such a low end processor (The graphics card is pretty decent overall for the current time). Graphics cards are useful for GPGPU computing, but without a decent CPU to back it up, interactivity isn't going to be much improved this generation. The PS4s CPU will be outstripped by phones within 2-3 years and that's a big deal to me :/

I know Sony/MS can't afford anything Intel makes, but they could at least have gone for a mid range AMD CPU as opposed to their netbook variants. A 4GHz 8 core piledriver CPU would actually be pretty good for a console. Instead we're going to get something around 1.6GHz (and GHz isn't everything, the Jaguar core is less powerful per clock than even piledriver, let's not even bring Intel's ivy bridge or Haswell into the equation).

Ah well, all hail the mobile phone as the true 'next gen' console i guess.

Hammeroj:

TheKasp:
Oh no, someone says something good about PCs and bad about consoles, he is clearly an elitist douchebag!!!

So many people seem not to know what an elitist actually is...

They know perfectly well what it is. It's a buzzword that doesn't really say anything meaningful but makes one appear to have a moral high ground.

So somewhat similiar to the actual meaning of 'Elitist'? You know, thinking you are better than person / group x without any actual base or arguments to support that notion... Wait, that does actually imply that they still don't know the meaning of that word (unless they really want to be hypocrits).

Ah, I'm just tired to hear this bullshit word thrown in every time someone wants to discuss something about PC here.

TheKasp:

Hammeroj:

TheKasp:
Oh no, someone says something good about PCs and bad about consoles, he is clearly an elitist douchebag!!!

So many people seem not to know what an elitist actually is...

They know perfectly well what it is. It's a buzzword that doesn't really say anything meaningful but makes one appear to have a moral high ground.

So somewhat similiar to the actual meaning of 'Elitist'? You know, thinking you are better than person / group x without any actual base or arguments to support that notion... Wait, that does actually imply that they still don't know the meaning of that word (unless they really want to be hypocrits).

Ah, I'm just tired to hear this bullshit word thrown in every time someone wants to discuss something about PC here.

Well we all know the console fanboys who shout elitists are the real elitists using the definition of the term, that's been the irony for years :) It's great.

Usually it just means 'I don't like that someone is talking about PC tech, because it makes me feel like my console isn't the best gaming experience with no caveats or exceptions, i don't like that people choose other things'. It tends to be a cycle anyway, at the beginning of a generation they used to say how PC was crap, not powerful enough ect. and then they go onto the defensive after a six months to a year when PC is faster. This time they just had to go on the defensive super quick because the consoles are low-mid range gaming PCs this time due to cost/power/thermal restraints.

Funny thing is, the PS4 is a PC with a custom OS anyway. Hell, you can bet that the PS4s APU design will have a PC spinoff for an uber cheap PC gaming machine (The PS4, after all, is a normal APU but with a tweaked CPU/GPU performance balance), since AMD can rake it in from that with much larger profit margins. So are the PS4 fanboys now PC fanboys? Are they, in fact, now calling themselves elitists when complaining about PC gaming?

Oh look another console/PC war in the comments.

Pretty much every point I could bring up here has probably been brought up in one way or another, so I won't say much. Instead, I'm just gonna put another 100 in the bank for my GTX780 fund, spend 20 dollars on crap for Tera, and probably stream some shitty footage of me doing PvE like I matter while later handpicking the highlights to make a somewhat memorable Youtube video.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here