How many millions more do you think have Geforce GTX 400, 500, and 700 cards? Plus lets not discount people who own Radeon graphic cards.
It could be in the ballpark of 25 million people who have PCs more powerful then PS4.
And yet the PS4 still has good looking games.
Dat optimization.
Graphics look good now-a-days anyway...I don't need a $1000 PC to tell me that.
this is all that consolites need to say. Be happy with your console. I'll buy a PS4 when it has games I want no matter how much better my PC is. I like games more than I like hardware. But consolites need to stop getting jelly trying to discredit PC's clear success.
@mr_huggles_dog: Here's another example. Look at the closest fire, no shadows, they seem to be lightmaps and not dynamic light sources.
Here's another, look at the fire glow to the left.
Don't get me wrong I think KZSF is really good looking game, I was initially responding to someone who claimed that KZSF's lightning is better than anything he's seen. Either he is delusional, hasn't played many games or lying.
Ah...I see what you're saying.
Yeah...there are a few instances where the shadows should be....but you're right....still a good looking game.
GTX600 series is less powerful and was more expensive than both the 700 series and the new 900 series. The GTX600 series is also so powerful that even now I'm still using my GTX680 with little incentive to upgrade. If add the number of people who went for 700 and 900, and people who went for the AMD-equivalents, the number of PC gamers with very high spec PCs must be quite impressive.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 is last gen spec req? What do you mean exactly? There also such a thing as optimizing your games for many GPU.
You won't be able to even play arma 3 at anything but mostly low setting and lucky enough to get 30fps with the minimum requirement which aren't even that accurate for many games.
Arma 3 requirements
System Requirements
MINIMUM:
OS:Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1
Processor:Intel Dual-Core 2.4 GHz or AMD Dual-Core Athlon 2.5 GHz
Memory:2 GB RAM
Graphics:NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT or AMD Radeon HD 3830 or Intel HD Graphics 4000 with 512 MB VRAM
DirectX®:10
Hard Drive:15 GB free space
Sound:DirectX®-compatible
AC Black Flag
System Requirements
MINIMUM:
OS: Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7 SP1 or Windows 8 (both 32/64bit versions)
Processor: Intel Core2Quad Q8400 @ 2.6 GHz or AMD Athlon II X4 620 @ 2.6 GHz
Memory: 2 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia Geforce GTX 260 or AMD Radeon HD 4870 (512MB VRAM with shader Model 4.0 or higher)
Hard Drive: 30 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible Sound Card with latest drivers
Additional Notes: Windows-Compatible keyboard and mouse required, controller optional.
@GoldenElementXL: You are right but you compare it to what? Creed and the new tomb raider game that you basicly press a button and your character automaticly does all the job? That doesnt take skill. Just take a look at tomb raider legend or anniversary. With health re filling if you die and load a checkpoint, there is practicly no skill involved there either. In the old games you had to manage medkits and ammo, anything by crystal dyanmics...not. Also there are the traps, the new tomb raider games hat unimaginative level design with no traps. There just isnt anything deep in crystal dynamics tomb raider games and looking how the last one was the most generic and the most scripted and costed 100 million i highly doubt the sequel would go far.
@MBirdy88: Wtf are you reading and why? i can post troll bait comments too but i am better than that. I prefer discussions
After watching the video yesterday, I realised something. I guess these benchmarks wouldn't do the GTX 970 and 980 justice because it's not taking into account the option to use the new MFAA to get AA results just as good but with far less of a hit to performance. It helps that I'm also happy with my 1050p monitor for this generation.
It's very tempting to get one of these some day, unless AMD come up with a better offer. It will be interesting to see.
EDIT: on second thoughts, maybe they'd be using MFAA anyway in those benchmarks.
I'm still waiting for the link that disproves the OP.
Did you not find it yet Cranler?
Not cranler.
All the op said is how many gtx 680 class cards were sold. this doesn't change the fact that multiplats are typically more dmeanding than pc exclusives.
I'm still waiting for the link that disproves the OP.
Did you not find it yet Cranler?
All the op said is how many gtx 680 class cards were sold. this doesn't change the fact that multiplats are typically more dmeanding than pc exclusives.
What does that even have to do with the first part of your sentence, or the OP at all?
Add in ATI and other models, and there is a very likely chance that there are far far more PC's > PS4s.
It's good to know more people enjoy superior best version of multiplats (aka most video games) on PC than Console.
GTX600 series is less powerful and was more expensive than both the 700 series and the new 900 series. The GTX600 series is also so powerful that even now I'm still using my GTX680 with little incentive to upgrade. If add the number of people who went for 700 and 900, and people who went for the AMD-equivalents, the number of PC gamers with very high spec PCs must be quite impressive.
a lot more than console players want to admit. At least 20 million. Then factor in all the PCs that are xbone level or higher and it's an even higher number. The number of people with "next-gen" capable PCs dwarfs those with actualy next-gen consoles. Even if you did the most conservative of conservative estimates lol
I'm still waiting for the link that disproves the OP.
Did you not find it yet Cranler?
All the op said is how many gtx 680 class cards were sold. this doesn't change the fact that multiplats are typically more dmeanding than pc exclusives.
What does that even have to do with the first part of your sentence, or the OP at all?
Add in ATI and other models, and there is a very likely chance that there are far far more PC's > PS4s.
It's good to know more people enjoy superior best version of multiplats (aka most video games) on PC than Console.
What does 10 million sales of a gpu class have to do with anything then? The only good that would come out of high gpu sales would be to give the pc a greater priority with publishers.
Wheres your proof that multiplats sell better on pc?
"Far cry 3. That game is unplayable once the fps gets into the 40's."
Yet it goes to 24 on consoles
All i can see on the 30 fps smoother on consoles argument is that a controller is slower when it comes to looking around so by moving the sticks slower the framerate doesnt appear to lag behind since you move your camera slowly on purpuse. Thats just playing slowly with a controller, its not the game magically running better at 30 fps on a console Try playing games like dmc under 60 fps on a console it still feels meh.
"What about AAA pc exclusives? Civ Beyond Earth has far lower reqs than upcoming multiplats."
and cod and valve games have lower requirments than crysis, where you going with thus? The better the graphics the higher the requirments.
"A games player count typically peaks at launch. Wasteland 2 being outplayed by a 2 year old shooter is very telling."
You comparing a game that more people own and play relegiously with a game that just came out. Did occur to you that those people just wanna finish borderlands 2 and not buy wasteland 2 yet? Most peopel who bought wasteland 2 do not consider borderlands 2 a good game. One focuses on tactics the other on grinding.
"RE 4 is a tps. You kill about 1,000 enemies per playthrough."
Because its a long action packed game, still its not a TPS its a survival horror game, you shoot legs to save ammo your movements controls are handicaped. its not a shooter like say max payne.
"Let me be more specific, why are non indie games pc exclusives typically less demanding than multiplats?"
Why would they be? The better the graphics the higher the requirments. Not every game needs to have the best graphics around. Arma and witcher 2 did, strategy games do not need to. Why spend 20 million just on the engine when the game is an rpg or a rts? What are you going to do with amazing physics and reallistic lighting when you just click on enemies and get xp? Look what happen to crytek they spend so much money on graphics that the rest of the games subpar.
"So you're saying that all these high end gpu sales really mean nothing since most pc exclusives will be designed for the lowest common denominator?"
No, most pc exlusives are not made by billion dollar worth studios, so they cant have such high quality graphics. By comparison console exlusives are very few and have high backing from sony or ms. People buy high end gpus to play graphically impressive games at the highest settings wherever its arma or assasin's creed. People said that most pc gamers dont have as good pcs as the next gen consoles according to steam stats. What they missed was that steam was 75 million and the next gen consoles at that point sold about 8 million together. This article proves thats not the case and pc gamers upgrade too. Most pc gamers havent upgraded yet becuase demanding games have not come out.
"There used to be a new "Crysis" almost every year from mid 90's to mid 2000's. What happened?"
Consoles ruined the fps genre thanks to cod. Id took too long to make games and they gone to 60 fps therefore rage was graphically unimpressive. Wolfenstein didnt sell so singularity, raven's next game had to be made on smaller budget and it was graphically unimpressive. It flopped raven closed down. Fear was amazing, consoles had to downgrade to run it. Bad ports exist on consoles apparently .Fear 2 wasnt the same jump as the first one, there were more graphically imrpessive games around. Monolith is now part of Warner bros and they are making the new lord of the rings game, that game is uber demanding. Crytek had to make crysis 2 smaller and les graphically impressive to work on consoles. They spend they money they made on crysis 1 to make crysis and crysis 3, crysis 3 was a failure, crytek will not be making big games anymore. Epic games developers of unreal gone to ms with gears of war and make money from selling unreal engine. Dice kept on making bf games, bf3 on consoles run on low pc settings. At 2011, consoles held back pc. Metro also run on low pc settings. So long story short consoles hold back pc, ruined the fps genre thanks to cod sales and cod ripoffs. The console crowd didnt buy fps from id, raven and crytek, then monolith followed. So only dice and 4A make graphically imrpessive games. Also cdprojekt with witcher 2 and bohemia with the arma series. Gearbox gone to art style with borderlands, so it was no demanding at all.
"Why should rts's and mmo's not go for high end graphics?"
Because its stupid why spend 20-30 milions for high end graphics when they offer nothing to the gameplay. You think anyone is gonna notice that infantry has high quality faces? Or anyone would care about physics in a rts? Most rts players dont play shooters anyway so they dont need high end pcs.
"Wasn't World in Conflict and Company of Heroes quite demanding for their time?"
All i remember wasthat company of heroes had top notch graphics for a rts, quite demanding? Maybe for a rts game, but not in genreal, if you could play fps at good graphics you propably could play company of heroes.
"All the hermits are claiming pwnage saying that there's more high end pc's than next gen consoles but what good is that if most of the exclusives cater to low end pc's?"
Not running games "next gen" games like lord of the fallen on 900p and 30 fps in freaking 2014.
Pc has 100 times more exlusives than consoles so the argument regarding "most" exlusives is kinda pointless. Pc has less AAA exlusives because ms and sony dont give money to developers to make pc exlusives. Why would they? They want to promote their consoles. Despite that the console wars keep going on, who has the best graphics, but a budget pc not a high end one...easilly beats both consoles.
I'm still waiting for the link that disproves the OP.
Did you not find it yet Cranler?
All the op said is how many gtx 680 class cards were sold. this doesn't change the fact that multiplats are typically more dmeanding than pc exclusives.
What does that even have to do with the first part of your sentence, or the OP at all?
Add in ATI and other models, and there is a very likely chance that there are far far more PC's > PS4s.
It's good to know more people enjoy superior best version of multiplats (aka most video games) on PC than Console.
What does 10 million sales of a gpu class have to do with anything then?
Proves that more people will be enjoying the best version of most game(multiplats) than PS4 users :)
@dakan45: You want to try and edit video on a dual core system? Its painful and slow. Production houses are paying you to edit video, not play games troll.
I am the troll, yet you are the one who is trolling!
Ok seriously wtf is wrong with you?
Why you insist on going on the two extremes?
No you are not gonna edit video on a dual core, duhhhh dual cores are freaking ancient and as low end as it gets.
But you dont need a freaking gtx680 to edit videos. You are the one who has convinced yourself that those gpus were bought by "production houses" When infact those production houses go by workstation videocards like quadro. You talking about some grade A CGI in video editing there, they propably using dual titans.
As nvidia said, they cant keep titan black in stock, everyone kept telling them, that no one is gonna buy those cards, well they did. Obviously not gamers but the very same "production houses" you talking about. However the gtx680 class that the nvidia ceo is reffering propably means all the GK104 chipset and not infact the specific gtx680, he is propably reffering to x70-80-90 from both 6 and 7 series. The production houses you reffer too got the titans.
"Far cry 3. That game is unplayable once the fps gets into the 40's."
Yet it goes to 24 on consoles
All i can see on the 30 fps smoother on consoles argument is that a controller is slower when it comes to looking around so by moving the sticks slower the framerate doesnt appear to lag behind since you move your camera slowly on purpuse. Thats just playing slowly with a controller, its not the game magically running better at 30 fps on a console Try playing games like dmc under 60 fps on a console it still feels meh.
"What about AAA pc exclusives? Civ Beyond Earth has far lower reqs than upcoming multiplats."
and cod and valve games have lower requirments than crysis, where you going with thus? The better the graphics the higher the requirments.
"A games player count typically peaks at launch. Wasteland 2 being outplayed by a 2 year old shooter is very telling."
You comparing a game that more people own and play relegiously with a game that just came out. Did occur to you that those people just wanna finish borderlands 2 and not buy wasteland 2 yet? Most peopel who bought wasteland 2 do not consider borderlands 2 a good game. One focuses on tactics the other on grinding.
"RE 4 is a tps. You kill about 1,000 enemies per playthrough."
Because its a long action packed game, still its not a TPS its a survival horror game, you shoot legs to save ammo your movements controls are handicaped. its not a shooter like say max payne.
"Let me be more specific, why are non indie games pc exclusives typically less demanding than multiplats?"
Why would they be? The better the graphics the higher the requirments. Not every game needs to have the best graphics around. Arma and witcher 2 did, strategy games do not need to. Why spend 20 million just on the engine when the game is an rpg or a rts? What are you going to do with amazing physics and reallistic lighting when you just click on enemies and get xp? Look what happen to crytek they spend so much money on graphics that the rest of the games subpar.
"So you're saying that all these high end gpu sales really mean nothing since most pc exclusives will be designed for the lowest common denominator?"
No, most pc exlusives are not made by billion dollar worth studios, so they cant have such high quality graphics. By comparison console exlusives are very few and have high backing from sony or ms. People buy high end gpus to play graphically impressive games at the highest settings wherever its arma or assasin's creed. People said that most pc gamers dont have as good pcs as the next gen consoles according to steam stats. What they missed was that steam was 75 million and the next gen consoles at that point sold about 8 million together. This article proves thats not the case and pc gamers upgrade too. Most pc gamers havent upgraded yet becuase demanding games have not come out.
"There used to be a new "Crysis" almost every year from mid 90's to mid 2000's. What happened?"
Consoles ruined the fps genre thanks to cod. Id took too long to make games and they gone to 60 fps therefore rage was graphically unimpressive. Wolfenstein didnt sell so singularity, raven's next game had to be made on smaller budget and it was graphically unimpressive. It flopped raven closed down. Fear was amazing, consoles had to downgrade to run it. Bad ports exist on consoles apparently .Fear 2 wasnt the same jump as the first one, there were more graphically imrpessive games around. Monolith is now part of Warner bros and they are making the new lord of the rings game, that game is uber demanding. Crytek had to make crysis 2 smaller and les graphically impressive to work on consoles. They spend they money they made on crysis 1 to make crysis and crysis 3, crysis 3 was a failure, crytek will not be making big games anymore. Epic games developers of unreal gone to ms with gears of war and make money from selling unreal engine. Dice kept on making bf games, bf3 on consoles run on low pc settings. At 2011, consoles held back pc. Metro also run on low pc settings. So long story short consoles hold back pc, ruined the fps genre thanks to cod sales and cod ripoffs. The console crowd didnt buy fps from id, raven and crytek, then monolith followed. So only dice and 4A make graphically imrpessive games. Also cdprojekt with witcher 2 and bohemia with the arma series. Gearbox gone to art style with borderlands, so it was no demanding at all.
"Why should rts's and mmo's not go for high end graphics?"
Because its stupid why spend 20-30 milions for high end graphics when they offer nothing to the gameplay. You think anyone is gonna notice that infantry has high quality faces? Or anyone would care about physics in a rts? Most rts players dont play shooters anyway so they dont need high end pcs.
"Wasn't World in Conflict and Company of Heroes quite demanding for their time?"
All i remember wasthat company of heroes had top notch graphics for a rts, quite demanding? Maybe for a rts game, but not in genreal, if you could play fps at good graphics you propably could play company of heroes.
"All the hermits are claiming pwnage saying that there's more high end pc's than next gen consoles but what good is that if most of the exclusives cater to low end pc's?"
Not running games "next gen" games like lord of the fallen on 900p and 30 fps in freaking 2014.
Pc has 100 times more exlusives than consoles so the argument regarding "most" exlusives is kinda pointless. Pc has less AAA exlusives because ms and sony dont give money to developers to make pc exlusives. Why would they? They want to promote their consoles. Despite that the console wars keep going on, who has the best graphics, but a budget pc not a high end one...easilly beats both consoles.
Consoles used to be powerfull, not anymore.
Far Cry 3 is perfectly playable at low fps on console.
Nope, it's not the control type. Crysis on pc has something going on that makes it smoother at low fps. Whatever it is is what all console games have.
CoD Ghosts min reqs
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHZ / AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 2.4 GHZ or better/HDD : 40 GB HD spaceVideo: NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTS 450 / ATI® Radeon™ HD 5870 or better
Thats quite a bit higher than Crysis which is the last pc exclusive graphical behemoth that a publisher was willing to fund.
More pc gamers own GTA 4 than Dead Rising 3 but theres more people playing Dead Rising 3 because it just came out. Again, a game's play count will usually peak at launch. Only time this might not happen is a free weekend.
In RE 4 all you do is shoot people. It's a tps plain and simple.
Your excuses for why certain games have bad graphics makes no sense. Same could be said of shooters.
What are you going to do with amazing physics and reallistic lighting when you just shoot enemies and get xp?
Are there any other pc exclusive shooters besides Planetside 2 that have good graphics?
CoD ruined the fps genre? How? CoD 1 and 2 were hugely popular on pc. PC gamers dropped arena fps in favor of games like CoD.
PC gamers stopped buying many games from Id, Raven and Monolith as well. Nolf 2 was an awesome shooter that sold poorly on pc.
Shadow of Mordor is demanding because of next gen consoles.
Crysis went multiplat because the game didn't sell quickly enough.
How are consoles holding back pc when all these f2p pc exclusive shooters look worse than multiplats?
@dakan45: The fact you said consoles ruined fps with COD shows how clueless you really are. COD was a PC franchise it moved to consoles and had more successful sales but it started on PC. You Herms seem to find a reason to bitch about any game especially when it becomes more successful on another platform. Tomb Raider is another perfect example. Horrible controls and ridiculous story lines brought the game to irrelevance and it was the reboot that made it relevant again.
@monstersfa: fc3 is not perfectly playable at 24 fps, please get real people were actually pissed about it. Still its not like fc3 requires much, you just stick behind cover pop to headshot or stab from behind, is not a fast paced shooter like cod.
"Crysis on pc has something going on that makes it smoother at low fps. Whatever it is is what all console games have."
It doesnt, quite the opposite infact crysis feels a chore with low fps.
"CoD Ghosts min reqs"
Garbage port, higher requirments than bf4. Same goes for black flag.
"More pc gamers own GTA 4 than Dead Rising 3 but theres more people playing Dead Rising 3 because it just came out."
You compare a game from 2008 with a game that came out a while ago? Notice how dead rising 3 has been out for far longer than wasteland 2.
"In RE 4 all you do is shoot people. It's a tps plain and simple."
Its not, you gotta save ammo, shoot the legs to knock them down and knife them. Its not a third person shooter. I wonder if you think that evil within is a third person shooter as well.
"Your excuses for why certain games have bad graphics makes no sense. Same could be said of shooters."
Your low intelligence perceives those facts as "excuses" Why would you spend 20-30 million more on a game just for better graphics. By the same logic why does ps4 have games like helldivers and journey and transistor? Why dont those games have cutting edge graphics like infamous or shadowfall?
PWND!!
"What are you going to do with amazing physics and reallistic lighting when you just shoot enemies and get xp?"
Exactly why you think every game needs to have amazing graphics? Its not needed. Crysis gone the extra mile and added alot of physics and destruction, most games nowdays do not feature any of those things. As result crysis looks techinically superior but not every game needs those thngs.
"Are there any other pc exclusive shooters besides Planetside 2 that have good graphics?"
???? Seriously? shadow warrior, arma 3, outlast, hard reset, witcher 2, many more i miss now. As you can see most of these including planetside 2 are going to cosnoles, why? because Graphics cost too much so if you have the budget to provide impressive graphics, you can make multiplatform games.
"CoD ruined the fps genre? How? CoD 1 and 2 were hugely popular on pc. PC gamers dropped arena fps in favor of games like CoD."
By selling alot of consoles and all fps becoming like them. Every shooter had a similar scripted to hell short singleplayer campaign and console gamers deemed it acceptable due to low standards. The result? A lot of companies gone under like raven and now crytek by the looks of it. Pc gamers didnt dropped the arena fps because of cod. The last arena fps that was made was unreal tournamnet 2004, quake 4 was ruined thanks to consoles and UT3 was unimpressive. Most pc gamers had already interest in counter strike so when cod4 came out they switched to counter strike. Cod is not the reason people stopped playing arena fps, but the fact those games stopped being made or being good.
"PC gamers stopped buying many games from Id, Raven and Monolith as well. Nolf 2 was an awesome shooter that sold poorly on pc."
Id didnt have "many games" They didnt make anything since 2004 with doom 3 and rage was a disaster. Raven slowly dig their own hole by ruining quake 4, then makign a wolfenstein game with iron sights and health regen and flopping in reviews. Then came singularity that had very little marketing and no one new it even existed. As for monolith? The screw up happened with fear 2. After that they stopped making fps for whatever reason. I have no idea how nolf 2 sold but it wasnt that great either. Fear on the other hand had high sales and 2 expansions due to its sucess, plus console versions and sequels.
"Shadow of Mordor is demanding because of next gen consoles."
Yet the game is also on last gen consoles. Sorry no, try again, shadow of mordor is lead on pc and it has not been show befor until game 24, all you had seen prior to that was cosnole footage. It is demanding because its demanding and thats that. Many next gen games are not demanding so your point is wrong.
"Crysis went multiplat because the game didn't sell quickly enough."
Meh, it went multiplat for many reasons, because cevat had delussions that his game would sell 10 times as much on consoles and ea pushed them for multiplatform. Obviosuly they would go multiplatform. The resut? Crysis 1 has sold more than crysis 2 on all platforms and crysis 3 was a failure crysis 2 and 3 were made with crysis 1 profits.
"How are consoles holding back pc when all these f2p pc exclusive shooters look worse than multiplats?"
Are you stupid? Warframe was not possible on last gen consoles nor was planetside 2. F2P games are not designed for high end pcs, they are FREE TO PLAY meaning they are not aiming at hardcore gamers who buy games and they do now have the best graphics around because they expect to make money from poor countries as well.
X360 and ps3 hold pc back since those f2p games looked better than multiplats. F2P game budget is nowhere near as high as cosnole multiplats.
So i guess thats a win,infact serious sam 3 destroys uncharted and the last of us. Needles to say those 2 games had 10 times the budget serious sam 3 had.
However as proven by sony exlusives like velocity 2x, just because you got alot of power it doesnt mean you GOT to use it. Small games do not aim for the best graphics same goes on pc.
@dakan45: The fact you said consoles ruined fps with COD shows how clueless you really are. COD was a PC franchise it moved to consoles and had more successful sales but it started on PC. You Herms seem to find a reason to bitch about any game especially when it becomes more successful on another platform. Tomb Raider is another perfect example. Horrible controls and ridiculous story lines brought the game to irrelevance and it was the reboot that made it relevant again.
Thats less to do with consoles vs PC's and more to do with what gamers will accept these days.
@dakan45: The fact you said consoles ruined fps with COD shows how clueless you really are. COD was a PC franchise it moved to consoles and had more successful sales but it started on PC. You Herms seem to find a reason to bitch about any game especially when it becomes more successful on another platform. Tomb Raider is another perfect example. Horrible controls and ridiculous story lines brought the game to irrelevance and it was the reboot that made it relevant again.
Ok seriously quit your trolling, so what if it was a pc franchise? Take a look at deus ex 2, consoles ruined it, take a look at dragon age 2, consoles ruined it. Take a look at fallout 3, consoles ruined it. Arguablly cods sucess with cod4, lead into dumbing down the game for dudebros with mw2 and they basicly cashed in being casual shooters, they kept making money out of hype and all the other developers looked on cod to figure out what made it so sucessfull.
The result? Bad cod ripoffs with generic uber scripted campaigns. Cod ruined the fps genre, fps became heavilly scripted modern war shooters with short campaigns and cod ripoff mp.
Tomb raider was ALSO a pc franchise. But it was FINE all those years on psx because gamers were not casuals back then.
What is your point?
"You Herms seem to find a reason to bitch about any game especially when it becomes more successful on another platform."
Am sorry are you a complete idiot or you just try to piss me off?
FANS of a franchsie will BITCH about a game or a genre when its ruined wherever it is a pc or a console game, but i dont expect you to understand than since you think the new tomb raider was sucessfull.
I am gonne post a bunch of examples here hopefully you quit trolling and reallize what nonsense you post.
Crysis, crysis 2 and 3 were ruined by consoles, they WERENT more sucessfull.
Tomb raider, was fine up until angel of darkness. Crystal dynamics took over and failed to do what core design did right. Now the new tomb raider is not "sucessfull" it was ruined in order to appeal to casual console dudebro games and not the fans of the series. It lost what made it unique and challenging and became just another casual shooter with health regen and cover system.
"Horrible controls and ridiculous story lines brought the game to irrelevance and it was the reboot that made it relevant again."
The controls were fine for its time, then they wanted to release the games more often to cash in the sucess...which is what consoles do, syphon filter, assasin creed, etc etc. While pc sequels take years. So they couldnt improve much on the 4th and 5th game and then the ACTUAL "horrible" controls with angel of darkness came and ruined it. Crystal dynamics took core design's place but while they improved controls their games were subpar. Tomb raider legen was a quickly put together crossgen game, anniversary was a bad remake that didnt sell. Underworld was a mess. The problem was that they couldnt make a good tomb raider game so they rebooted it. The reboot costed 100 million and square enix was not happy with the sales. Now the game has timed exlusivity to xbox one. So obviously the new tomb raider was not a hot sucess as you think.
As for riddiculious storlines? The old tomb raider games had very similar storlines to uncharted but with less dialogues and characters and more focus on tombs and mythical creatures.
You think the new tomb raider has a good story? Thats just the cinematic focus of the game, take the that away and the story is borring and quite bad.
@monstersfa: fc3 is not perfectly playable at 24 fps, please get real people were actually pissed about it. Still its not like fc3 requires much, you just stick behind cover pop to headshot or stab from behind, is not a fast paced shooter like cod.
"Crysis on pc has something going on that makes it smoother at low fps. Whatever it is is what all console games have."
It doesnt, quite the opposite infact crysis feels a chore with low fps.
"CoD Ghosts min reqs"
Garbage port, higher requirments than bf4. Same goes for black flag.
"More pc gamers own GTA 4 than Dead Rising 3 but theres more people playing Dead Rising 3 because it just came out."
You compare a game from 2008 with a game that came out a while ago? Notice how dead rising 3 has been out for far longer than wasteland 2.
"In RE 4 all you do is shoot people. It's a tps plain and simple."
Its not, you gotta save ammo, shoot the legs to knock them down and knife them. Its not a third person shooter. I wonder if you think that evil within is a third person shooter as well.
"Your excuses for why certain games have bad graphics makes no sense. Same could be said of shooters."
Your low intelligence perceives those facts as "excuses" Why would you spend 20-30 million more on a game just for better graphics. By the same logic why does ps4 have games like helldivers and journey and transistor? Why dont those games have cutting edge graphics like infamous or shadowfall?
PWND!!
"What are you going to do with amazing physics and reallistic lighting when you just shoot enemies and get xp?"
Exactly why you think every game needs to have amazing graphics? Its not needed. Crysis gone the extra mile and added alot of physics and destruction, most games nowdays do not feature any of those things. As result crysis looks techinically superior but not every game needs those thngs.
"Are there any other pc exclusive shooters besides Planetside 2 that have good graphics?"
???? Seriously? shadow warrior, arma 3, outlast, hard reset, witcher 2, many more i miss now. As you can see most of these including planetside 2 are going to cosnoles, why? because Graphics cost too much so if you have the budget to provide impressive graphics, you can make multiplatform games.
"CoD ruined the fps genre? How? CoD 1 and 2 were hugely popular on pc. PC gamers dropped arena fps in favor of games like CoD."
By selling alot of consoles and all fps becoming like them. Every shooter had a similar scripted to hell short singleplayer campaign and console gamers deemed it acceptable due to low standards. The result? A lot of companies gone under like raven and now crytek by the looks of it. Pc gamers didnt dropped the arena fps because of cod. The last arena fps that was made was unreal tournamnet 2004, quake 4 was ruined thanks to consoles and UT3 was unimpressive. Most pc gamers had already interest in counter strike so when cod4 came out they switched to counter strike. Cod is not the reason people stopped playing arena fps, but the fact those games stopped being made or being good.
"PC gamers stopped buying many games from Id, Raven and Monolith as well. Nolf 2 was an awesome shooter that sold poorly on pc."
Id didnt have "many games" They didnt make anything since 2004 with doom 3 and rage was a disaster. Raven slowly dig their own hole by ruining quake 4, then makign a wolfenstein game with iron sights and health regen and flopping in reviews. Then came singularity that had very little marketing and no one new it even existed. As for monolith? The screw up happened with fear 2. After that they stopped making fps for whatever reason. I have no idea how nolf 2 sold but it wasnt that great either. Fear on the other hand had high sales and 2 expansions due to its sucess, plus console versions and sequels.
"Shadow of Mordor is demanding because of next gen consoles."
Yet the game is also on last gen consoles. Sorry no, try again, shadow of mordor is lead on pc and it has not been show befor until game 24, all you had seen prior to that was cosnole footage. It is demanding because its demanding and thats that. Many next gen games are not demanding so your point is wrong.
"Crysis went multiplat because the game didn't sell quickly enough."
Meh, it went multiplat for many reasons, because cevat had delussions that his game would sell 10 times as much on consoles and ea pushed them for multiplatform. Obviosuly they would go multiplatform. The resut? Crysis 1 has sold more than crysis 2 on all platforms and crysis 3 was a failure crysis 2 and 3 were made with crysis 1 profits.
"How are consoles holding back pc when all these f2p pc exclusive shooters look worse than multiplats?"
Are you stupid? Warframe was not possible on last gen consoles nor was planetside 2. F2P games are not designed for high end pcs, they are FREE TO PLAY meaning they are not aiming at hardcore gamers who buy games and they do now have the best graphics around because they expect to make money from poor countries as well.
X360 and ps3 hold pc back since those f2p games looked better than multiplats. F2P game budget is nowhere near as high as cosnole multiplats.
So i guess thats a win,infact serious sam 3 destroys uncharted and the last of us. Needles to say those 2 games had 10 times the budget serious sam 3 had.
However as proven by sony exlusives like velocity 2x, just because you got alot of power it doesnt mean you GOT to use it. Small games do not aim for the best graphics same goes on pc.
I played FC 3 on console and it was fine. When I fist got FC 3 on pc and was foguring out what settings I could use I noticed how choppy the game got anytime the fps dipped below 50.
I remember many people on Crysis forums mentioning how smooth the game was at low fps. When Crysis launched barely anyone could run the game at 60 fps.
Either way most multiplats have higher reqs than most pc exclsuives.
It's common knowledge that the player count usually peaks during a games launch period.
No game needs great graphics but they're nice to have.
Having survival horror elements doesn't make RE 4 any more a survival horror game than CoD having level progression makes it an rpg.
CoD sold great on pc as well. Quake 4 sold awful on pc while CoD 2 was the pc's biggest shooter of 2005. In 2007 CoD 4 with it's scripted campaing was the pc's biggest shooter. FPS devs would have copied CoD either way. HL 2 is scripted to hell and back.
Did Metro 2033 cost $30 million more to make because of the graphics?
You keep forgetting that this is a thread about a gpu designed to run games with cutting edge graphics. Why are most of those ganes with cutting edge graphics mulitplats?
Hermits are boasting about how many pc gamers have high end pc's yet it's still not enough to get another "Crysis" so whats this thread about then?
The Witcher 2 isn't a shooter and those other games have lower reqs than next gen multiplats.
PC is getting the next gen version of Mordor which has a better nemesis system among other things. What aaa next gen multiplats aren't demanding?
EA pushed for Crysis to go multiplat because they weren't happy with the pc version sales.
Most free to play and pc exclusives have outdated graphics so consoels aren't holding back pc.
You say "Small games do not aim for the best graphics same goes on pc."
Honestly I gotta thank the TC for the link in the original post.
Seems like there are defiantly more high-end PC's than consoles when you factor in other models and ATI. This is great as more people get to experience the far superior version of multiplats this gen.
For every one of those games there's hundreds with outdated graphics.
Only game on there I know the name of that's been released is Lichdom which was a complete flop sales wise. So 10 million pc gamers own high end cards but mostly only use them for multiplats is seems
"I played FC 3 on console and it was fine. When I fist got FC 3 on pc and was foguring out what settings I could use I noticed how choppy the game got anytime the fps dipped below 50."
lol
seems to me you just had screen tearing and you dont know what you talking about.
"I remember many people on Crysis forums mentioning how smooth the game was at low fps. When Crysis launched barely anyone could run the game at 60 fps."
You post nosense, crysis run badly when launched and it was definetly not "smooth" there is no such thing as being smooth at low fps because "reasons" on pc. Which is funny because you argue that consoles somehow are smoother than pc on 30 fps, which is not the case.
The truth is simple you are used to 30 fps and now you play on more than 30 you see how subpar is really is, everything else is just delussions. Recently i accidently set bioshock infinite on 30 fps, i thought my game run bad, but no i just accidently set it to 30 fps.
"It's common knowledge that the player count usually peaks during a games launch period."
No a game player count peaks when the hype is high. OBVIOUSLY people who play wasteland 2 are not as many as people who paly fps DUHHH.
Also wasteland 2 is not exlusive to steam so you lose numbers from there too.
"Having survival horror elements doesn't make RE 4 any more a survival horror game than CoD having level progression makes it an rpg."
Not but its not a generic third person shooter than you just shoot everything and not worry about running out of ammo. Try playing re4 like you play cod and you gonna run out of ammo.
"CoD sold great on pc as well. Quake 4 sold awful on pc while CoD 2 was the pc's biggest shooter of 2005. In 2007 CoD 4 with it's scripted campaing was the pc's biggest shooter. FPS devs would have copied CoD either way. HL 2 is scripted to hell and back."
I dont know how quake 4 sold, but i dont doubt it sold bd if thats the case. Hl2 is nowhere near as scripted as cod. If games were like hl2, then the fps genre would be fine, there would be puzzles, there would be open areas rather killing you for straying too far from the objective, there will be platform sections. Look its simple, homefront, medal of honor battlefield 3 and a bunch of other games copied cod.
They made their singleplayer uber scripted even more than cod, they got 2 weapons limit and health regeneration and linear maps. Even wolfenstein 2009 did it. Even fear 3 did even bioshock infinite did it. Cod4 and mw2 sucess were the reasons the fps genre turned into cod clones and that sucks.
"Did Metro 2033 cost $30 million more to make because of the graphics?"
Compared to rts and indie games it obviously cost more but metro is not a good example because its made in Ukraine and it has lower budget than games like tomb raider, cod, and such.
Infact the studio head said that AAA games dont have to cost that much.
There are examples that small games like shadow warrior and hard reset and serious sam 3 cost less to make than multiplatforms but usually its the opposite.
Basicly the more cinematic the game is and the best graphics the more it costs.
If you make an engine that doesnt have physics and ai and weapons like say beyond two souls did, it will cost less.
"You keep forgetting that this is a thread about a gpu designed to run games with cutting edge graphics. Why are most of those ganes with cutting edge graphics mulitplats?"
You keep posting that pc exlusives dont have cutting edge graphics, why you think that people who buy these high end gpus buy them? Obviously not to play graphically unimpessive games but to play graphically impressive or demanding games. Saying that pc gamers buy powerfull hardware to play multiplats is like pointing out that most people bought ps4 to play multiplats than sony exlusives.
The most graphically impressive games have alot of budget, so they are multiplatform. The new consoles are weak, so the best graphics can be achieved on those games only on pc.
"Hermits are boasting about how many pc gamers have high end pc's yet it's still not enough to get another "Crysis" so whats this thread about then?"
Another crysis? Meaning?
A techinical showoff of what pc can do? We saw how that turned out for killzone shadowfall. Still witcher 3 and star citizen wil be "another crysis" on pc. So the question is not what this thread is about but what you talking about? People buy high end videocards because they want the best graphics. Thats them not everyone but by the looks of it they are not few as console gamers thought. The thread is proving that the argument that there arent enough pc gamers to own pcs are powerfull as ps4/xbone is wrong.
"The Witcher 2 isn't a shooter and those other games have lower reqs than next gen multiplats."
Neither is infamous SS but its what sony has at this moment. Witcher 2 is an old game, obviosuly it has lower requirments but it was quite demanding at the time as you say.
"PC is getting the next gen version of Mordor which has a better nemesis system among other things. What aaa next gen multiplats aren't demanding?"
Bf4 wasnt demanding, wolfenstein wasnt demanding, basicly most multiplats are not demanding.
"EA pushed for Crysis to go multiplat because they weren't happy with the pc version sales."
EA? You mean the publisher that has closed down multiple studios and bought their assets, the worst company in USA voted twice by the consumers, the company who makes a bazillion of dlcs before the game is out, the company that ruined bf, the company that ruined maxis, bullforg,pandemic and a bazillion others? According to ea they made over 3 milion sales on crysis, so it seems to me Cevat was the one who wasnt happy with the sales and ea just wanted to make more money by releasing to more platforms as they always do.
Ea is known for "more money required" and closing down studios they are not "happy" with anything.
"Most free to play and pc exclusives have outdated graphics so consoels aren't holding back pc."
Most f2p games are OLD so obviously they have old graphics, you cant expect something as old as combat arms to have good graphics. As for pc exlusives? Are you not paying any attention? Most pc exlusives are made on LOW budgets, they do not have the money that multiplatform games have, so they cant have better graphics when the games are made by 2-10 people and multiplatform gamse are made with 50-200 people.
But consoles DO hold pc back. The fact crysis from 2007 beats anything on ps3/x360 and most games on ps3/x360 have small maps with no interaction prove that consoles hold technology back. Consoles do hold pc back, because while a AAA game could have better graphics, animations, physics and bigger enviroments on pc, it doesnt in order to work on ps3 and x360.
Ryse was held back by xbone with a lower resolution and downgrades.
"You say "Small games do not aim for the best graphics same goes on pc."
Is Civ Beyond Earth a small game?"
It doesnt cost anywhere near as tomb raider, cod, destiny or ubisoft games to be made so yeah, compared to them is small, rts are not expensive to make.
While the footing isn't entirely level on the image quality front, both the PS3 and 360 do offer up their own unique advantages in the shadow of the PC version. Performance could well prove to be the distinguishing point here. To kick things off, we take a look at synchronised stretches of play in Far Cry 3 using our Face-Off footage in a bid to exactly pinpoint where the peaks and troughs might be.
We see Far Cry 3 attempting to hit the 30FPS target as per the previous game, alongside an adaptive v-sync where frames may run over budget - in short, it's the standard "lock at 30, tear beneath" set-up common to many console titles.
Our footage starts off at an unprecedented low during the cut-scene with Vaas, for which we record a remarkably sluggish 15FPS on PS3 - a surprise considering how little is being rendered at the time. This is compared to 20FPS on 360 in matching footage, which later proves to be the running standard for every subsequent cut-scene on either platform. It's not exactly ideal, but difficult to notice where the camera stays still, and fortunately doesn't cross over to actual gameplay. In these situations, it appears that Ubisoft implements a full v-sync for these scripted moments, moving onto the adaptive strategy during gameplay.
Even so, travelling around the islands by either foot or car still gives us wavering readings on both consoles, mostly circulating around the 25FPS point. This is usually a little higher on 360, though the juddering sensation feels largely comparable between the two at these levels of refresh. However, the regular, high levels of tearing prove to be the greater issue here.
Rather than being subtly marginalised to the top of each console's output, each frame is constantly under threat of being torn directly through the middle when the hardware is stressed. This becomes a major blemish on both PS3 and 360 alike when charging through jungles, or indoor areas with high ornamental detail, which sadly comprises most of the game. The issue is only amplified by having the game set in a colourful world where such artefacts are easier for the eye to pick out.
On to battle; our next selection of clips centres on shoot-outs and a spell of animal hunting. These unsynchronised scenes typically stress performance even further, though for the most part Far Cry 3 operates at the same circa 25FPS as before, and with the same onslaught of full screen tearing. On-rails set pieces bring both consoles down to the greatest extent in our footage, and a shoot-out from the back of a rolling car causes both the 360 and PS3 to drop to little over 20FPS. Again, it's Microsoft's console that tends to remain a few frames above the competition.
What does 10 million sales of a gpu class have to do with anything then?
Proves that more people will be enjoying the best version of most game(multiplats) than PS4 users :)
As well as gfx kings like SC and RysePC.
Where's your proof that multiplats sell better on pc? Also remember that console multiplat sales are split between 2 to 4 platforms.
This is about hardware sales. Far more people have better PC's than PS4's. I can't list software sales as steam/origin keep them secret, but that isn't what the thread is about.
Also stop hiding behind Wii and Xbox. There are 4 systems this gen: PC, WiiU, PS4, XBONE. PC is currently winning in hardware, game-software, and scores out of these 4.
What does 10 million sales of a gpu class have to do with anything then?
Proves that more people will be enjoying the best version of most game(multiplats) than PS4 users :)
As well as gfx kings like SC and RysePC.
Where's your proof that multiplats sell better on pc? Also remember that console multiplat sales are split between 2 to 4 platforms.
This is about hardware sales. Far more people have better PC's than PS4's. I can't list software sales as steam/origin keep them secret, but that isn't what the thread is about.
Also stop hiding behind Wii and Xbox. There are 4 systems this gen: PC, WiiU, PS4, XBONE. PC is currently winning in hardware, game-software, and scores out of these 4.
You brought up games. PC gamers spending a lot of money on mmo subs and microtransactions doesn't mean they spend more on mid core games. PS 4 and Xbone are competing with each other and last gen consoles as well.
@dakan45: Please just STFU! You sound like the kid who loves a band untill everyone else starts liking it. Yes you are that guy. Let's cut through your bullshit one game at a time starting with COD.
COD was a linear scripted shooter from the beginning. That never changed, the only difference is it went from WW 2 to modern day. The gameplay mechanics are exactly as they were. Consoles didn't come in and make them any worse then what they were they just made them more popular.
Now lets get to Tomb Raider. I love how you say the controls and everything were fine for there time. Well that's the problem. The game never evolved even when it was big on pc and the psx. The controls were sluggish in comparison to other games at the time. From the horrible control responce on jumps to the God awful aim mechanics TR went down hill at around TR3 and kept falling fast. By the PS2 Era it was already on its death bed. It was completely irrelevant in comparison to other action adventure franchises that kept evolving and were just better. MGS, SC were just better games nobody gave a Shit about tomb raider untill UC came out and showed how it was supposed to be done. So the reboot was heavily inspired off of that and managed to be a decent game to boot. Not to mention it was rated high which is far more then we can say about other mainstream TR games.
And it ruined fallout? Lmao really? Fallout 3 was critically acclaimed that's just your nostalgia talking. Fall out was irrelevant for so long if itcwasnt for consoles there would be no more fallout period. And the first Dragon Age sucked. Who the **** wants combat where you can get up and make a sandwich while your character does all the fighting for you. I'm sorry I actually like to play my games.
Crysis? Crysis never sold that well on consoles to begin with so how did they ruin it? You wanna blame someone blame Crytek . The first game was pirated to he'll and back so blame PC gamers for not supporting it.
While the footing isn't entirely level on the image quality front, both the PS3 and 360 do offer up their own unique advantages in the shadow of the PC version. Performance could well prove to be the distinguishing point here. To kick things off, we take a look at synchronised stretches of play in Far Cry 3 using our Face-Off footage in a bid to exactly pinpoint where the peaks and troughs might be.
We see Far Cry 3 attempting to hit the 30FPS target as per the previous game, alongside an adaptive v-sync where frames may run over budget - in short, it's the standard "lock at 30, tear beneath" set-up common to many console titles.
Our footage starts off at an unprecedented low during the cut-scene with Vaas, for which we record a remarkably sluggish 15FPS on PS3 - a surprise considering how little is being rendered at the time. This is compared to 20FPS on 360 in matching footage, which later proves to be the running standard for every subsequent cut-scene on either platform. It's not exactly ideal, but difficult to notice where the camera stays still, and fortunately doesn't cross over to actual gameplay. In these situations, it appears that Ubisoft implements a full v-sync for these scripted moments, moving onto the adaptive strategy during gameplay.
Even so, travelling around the islands by either foot or car still gives us wavering readings on both consoles, mostly circulating around the 25FPS point. This is usually a little higher on 360, though the juddering sensation feels largely comparable between the two at these levels of refresh. However, the regular, high levels of tearing prove to be the greater issue here.
Rather than being subtly marginalised to the top of each console's output, each frame is constantly under threat of being torn directly through the middle when the hardware is stressed. This becomes a major blemish on both PS3 and 360 alike when charging through jungles, or indoor areas with high ornamental detail, which sadly comprises most of the game. The issue is only amplified by having the game set in a colourful world where such artefacts are easier for the eye to pick out.
On to battle; our next selection of clips centres on shoot-outs and a spell of animal hunting. These unsynchronised scenes typically stress performance even further, though for the most part Far Cry 3 operates at the same circa 25FPS as before, and with the same onslaught of full screen tearing. On-rails set pieces bring both consoles down to the greatest extent in our footage, and a shoot-out from the back of a rolling car causes both the 360 and PS3 to drop to little over 20FPS. Again, it's Microsoft's console that tends to remain a few frames above the competition.
And this has nothing to do with my point that pc games look worse at 30 fps than console games.
@dakan45 said:
@monstersfa:
"I played FC 3 on console and it was fine. When I fist got FC 3 on pc and was foguring out what settings I could use I noticed how choppy the game got anytime the fps dipped below 50."
lol
seems to me you just had screen tearing and you dont know what you talking about.
"I remember many people on Crysis forums mentioning how smooth the game was at low fps. When Crysis launched barely anyone could run the game at 60 fps."
You post nosense, crysis run badly when launched and it was definetly not "smooth" there is no such thing as being smooth at low fps because "reasons" on pc. Which is funny because you argue that consoles somehow are smoother than pc on 30 fps, which is not the case.
The truth is simple you are used to 30 fps and now you play on more than 30 you see how subpar is really is, everything else is just delussions. Recently i accidently set bioshock infinite on 30 fps, i thought my game run bad, but no i just accidently set it to 30 fps.
"It's common knowledge that the player count usually peaks during a games launch period."
No a game player count peaks when the hype is high. OBVIOUSLY people who play wasteland 2 are not as many as people who paly fps DUHHH.
Also wasteland 2 is not exlusive to steam so you lose numbers from there too.
"Having survival horror elements doesn't make RE 4 any more a survival horror game than CoD having level progression makes it an rpg."
Not but its not a generic third person shooter than you just shoot everything and not worry about running out of ammo. Try playing re4 like you play cod and you gonna run out of ammo.
"CoD sold great on pc as well. Quake 4 sold awful on pc while CoD 2 was the pc's biggest shooter of 2005. In 2007 CoD 4 with it's scripted campaing was the pc's biggest shooter. FPS devs would have copied CoD either way. HL 2 is scripted to hell and back."
I dont know how quake 4 sold, but i dont doubt it sold bd if thats the case. Hl2 is nowhere near as scripted as cod. If games were like hl2, then the fps genre would be fine, there would be puzzles, there would be open areas rather killing you for straying too far from the objective, there will be platform sections. Look its simple, homefront, medal of honor battlefield 3 and a bunch of other games copied cod.
They made their singleplayer uber scripted even more than cod, they got 2 weapons limit and health regeneration and linear maps. Even wolfenstein 2009 did it. Even fear 3 did even bioshock infinite did it. Cod4 and mw2 sucess were the reasons the fps genre turned into cod clones and that sucks.
"Did Metro 2033 cost $30 million more to make because of the graphics?"
Compared to rts and indie games it obviously cost more but metro is not a good example because its made in Ukraine and it has lower budget than games like tomb raider, cod, and such.
Infact the studio head said that AAA games dont have to cost that much.
There are examples that small games like shadow warrior and hard reset and serious sam 3 cost less to make than multiplatforms but usually its the opposite.
Basicly the more cinematic the game is and the best graphics the more it costs.
If you make an engine that doesnt have physics and ai and weapons like say beyond two souls did, it will cost less.
"You keep forgetting that this is a thread about a gpu designed to run games with cutting edge graphics. Why are most of those ganes with cutting edge graphics mulitplats?"
You keep posting that pc exlusives dont have cutting edge graphics, why you think that people who buy these high end gpus buy them? Obviously not to play graphically unimpessive games but to play graphically impressive or demanding games. Saying that pc gamers buy powerfull hardware to play multiplats is like pointing out that most people bought ps4 to play multiplats than sony exlusives.
The most graphically impressive games have alot of budget, so they are multiplatform. The new consoles are weak, so the best graphics can be achieved on those games only on pc.
"Hermits are boasting about how many pc gamers have high end pc's yet it's still not enough to get another "Crysis" so whats this thread about then?"
Another crysis? Meaning?
A techinical showoff of what pc can do? We saw how that turned out for killzone shadowfall. Still witcher 3 and star citizen wil be "another crysis" on pc. So the question is not what this thread is about but what you talking about? People buy high end videocards because they want the best graphics. Thats them not everyone but by the looks of it they are not few as console gamers thought. The thread is proving that the argument that there arent enough pc gamers to own pcs are powerfull as ps4/xbone is wrong.
"The Witcher 2 isn't a shooter and those other games have lower reqs than next gen multiplats."
Neither is infamous SS but its what sony has at this moment. Witcher 2 is an old game, obviosuly it has lower requirments but it was quite demanding at the time as you say.
"PC is getting the next gen version of Mordor which has a better nemesis system among other things. What aaa next gen multiplats aren't demanding?"
Bf4 wasnt demanding, wolfenstein wasnt demanding, basicly most multiplats are not demanding.
"EA pushed for Crysis to go multiplat because they weren't happy with the pc version sales."
EA? You mean the publisher that has closed down multiple studios and bought their assets, the worst company in USA voted twice by the consumers, the company who makes a bazillion of dlcs before the game is out, the company that ruined bf, the company that ruined maxis, bullforg,pandemic and a bazillion others? According to ea they made over 3 milion sales on crysis, so it seems to me Cevat was the one who wasnt happy with the sales and ea just wanted to make more money by releasing to more platforms as they always do.
Ea is known for "more money required" and closing down studios they are not "happy" with anything.
"Most free to play and pc exclusives have outdated graphics so consoels aren't holding back pc."
Most f2p games are OLD so obviously they have old graphics, you cant expect something as old as combat arms to have good graphics. As for pc exlusives? Are you not paying any attention? Most pc exlusives are made on LOW budgets, they do not have the money that multiplatform games have, so they cant have better graphics when the games are made by 2-10 people and multiplatform gamse are made with 50-200 people.
But consoles DO hold pc back. The fact crysis from 2007 beats anything on ps3/x360 and most games on ps3/x360 have small maps with no interaction prove that consoles hold technology back. Consoles do hold pc back, because while a AAA game could have better graphics, animations, physics and bigger enviroments on pc, it doesnt in order to work on ps3 and x360.
Ryse was held back by xbone with a lower resolution and downgrades.
"You say "Small games do not aim for the best graphics same goes on pc."
Is Civ Beyond Earth a small game?"
It doesnt cost anywhere near as tomb raider, cod, destiny or ubisoft games to be made so yeah, compared to them is small, rts are not expensive to make.
i know the difference between tearing and choppy framerate
How do you explain all those hits when googling games are smoother at 30 fps on console?
It has nothing to do with what i'm used to. If i lock a pc game to 30 fps it looks awful while console it's tolerable.
Hype is highest when a game releases.
So if someone made a Doom 3 mod to limit ammo would that suddenly transform the game into survival horror?
The fact that there's no Quake 5 and the mp was dead in 2 months is enough to know how poorly it sold.
Military shooters began on pc. They became hugely popular on pc. Fear was originally a pc exclsuive and it had a weapon limit. The CoD copying would have occurred without consoles.
So you agree that the most of the demanding games on pc are multiplats?
Witcher 3 and Star Citizen look to be nowhere near as impressive for now than Crysis or Doom 3 was for their time.
Take a look at the reqs of Lord of the Fallen and Mordor, way above the average pc game reqs. And those two are just the tip of the iceberg. AC Unity, Arkham Knight will probably be even higher.
How is BF ruined? It's selling better than ever. BF 4 premium sales alone are outpacing BF 2's first year sales.
PC lackluster sales of Crysis is whats holding pc back.
Ryse would have never even been made had it not been for the xbone.
Metro and Witcher 2 proves you can have great graphics without a huge budget so again why doesn't a big franchise like Civ have better graphics?
Source of that info. That's a lot of conjured up text from simply observing Crysis 2 on an x1950 pro. You must have read that from some credible place. And not created it out of thin air. I mean you're right. The CPU overhead is overwhelmed by very powerful CPU's in modern PC's. So essentially a PC with a 7850, a Phenom ii x4 3.0GHz, and 8GB of RAM should perform at least as good as a PS4 throughout it's life no matter how much tighter the single spec code is on PS4?
You are yet to link to where you gotten this exact information and how you came to the exact conclusion. I'm guessing it's not something you pieced together yourself, but a very credible and reliable source that explains pretty much everything you said verbatum while confirming that 2x performance claims are only CPU bound.
Just a simple URL adress would suffice :)
Its not just from Crysis 2, many examples from other games as well. Also should note as well that Crysis 2 was running on dx 9 API which has more overhead then dx10 and more so then dx11. DX10 introduced Fully programmable pipelines, SM 4.0 , Geometry Shaders, Texture Arrays, Predicated Rendering, and DX 11 improved upon dx10 with Tessellation, Multi-threaded Rendering, Compute Shaders. SSAO, HDAO, and more Post-Processing etc. DX11 with its native support of multithreading allows the cpu to allocate more cpu resources more efficiently toward gpu. So yes an example of a Phenom 2 x4 etc will provide on par experience as PS4 with multiplat games.
Now you cant just link one specific site showing all the reasons and facts why and how. But its a magnitude of info from many sources. But to sum everything up cpu controls all the data and processes it for the next steps for its destination. Direct x, its main purpose of being an all in one compatible API able to handle a slew of configurations has more checks and balances to ensure hardware will work together. Which creates more work. Trying to make the same number of draw calls with direct x 9 would need nearly 2x the cpu cycles if you were using equal cpu's vs console OS/API environment. Hence the 2x performance claims, which in real world scenarios would never happen since the gap in cpu performance, and the lack of cpu's that are equal.
Since we roughly know the processing power of the jaguar architecture which is roughly 15% faster then AMD's bobcat series clock per clock and tests showing the difference between bobcat vs Athlon X2 and Athlon 2 series at same clock rate and core count (1.6 ghz and two cores) shows that jag's are only slightly faster then the old Athlon x2 K8 chip but is nearly 30% slower clock per clock then Athlon 2 (K10). So if we were to simplify performance rates, jag would 100 per core(usable) so 100x6=600, Now an Athlon 2 X4 at 1.6 ghz would be like 130x4= 520, so once we start pumping up the clock rate to 2.4 ghz, that is a 50% increase in clockrate, would increase the rate to 195 per core so 195x4= 780. Which means 2.4 ghz Athlon 2 X4 would be about 25% faster, and with 3.2 ghz it would be about 50% faster. And Phenom 2's being 10-15% faster then Athlon 2's and all other AMD FX series having 6 and 8 cores those jag's dont stance a chance. Lets not even go into intel's side lol.
So essentially. 1.8TF Console GPU = 1.8TF PC GPU DX9-11 performace?
Console CPU roughly x2 perf of equivelent speed PC CPU which is where devs get the 2x performance thing from?
Good to know... ....... . ... ... .. .. ...
Pretty much. Although the 2x performance thing probably had more sway on directx 9. Directx 11 was a bit better.
I remember having to upgrade my old Athlon x2 CPU last gen because some games were maxing it out and bottlenecking my GPU like The Force Unleashed 2 and Need for Speed Hot Pursuit.
After watching the video yesterday, I realised something. I guess these benchmarks wouldn't do the GTX 970 and 980 justice because it's not taking into account the option to use the new MFAA to get AA results just as good but with far less of a hit to performance. It helps that I'm also happy with my 1050p monitor for this generation.
It's very tempting to get one of these some day, unless AMD come up with a better offer. It will be interesting to see.
EDIT: on second thoughts, maybe they'd be using MFAA anyway in those benchmarks.
I don't think MFAA is implemented in those games so they are using regular MSAA.
MFAA is probably like TXAA where the devs have to add it to the game for it to work.
@MK-Professor: Where do you keep getting 4.3 times the performance. Do you have benchmarks that back that up? Regardless it doesn't look 4x better not in the age of diminishing returns. And it simply doesn't have the games I want so for me it's not worth it.
Ther are benchmarks HD7850 vs CF HD7950(1120mhz practical R9 280X level) that show that. Also it does look 10 times better, you know what I mean double the rez, double the fps, more AA, higher settings etc
Log in to comment