Are PC graphics really that impressive anymore?

@dxmcat: I’ve probably been gaming on PC longer than you’ve been alive, slick.

I’ve been gaming long before you were a gleam is your mother’s womb.

I know more than you want to ct like since you’re all pissy about that online PC gaming thread...thats a fact.

At the macro scale no the difference between the two in graphical fidelity isn't that different (speaking from PS4 and Xbox), in PC versions you have access to better graphical effects (such as Interactive smoke in Batman Arkham Knight) but overall the difference aren't that large, however as PCs have the better hardware the obvious difference anyone can spot is that they are better at producing sharper images, being able to maintain and achieve Full HD or 4k resolution (where in consoles they fluctuate in order to keep fps at playable levels), and they perform a lot better as well, providing higher and more stable fps, which are really the two difference you can easily notice compared to consoles.

Edit: But then again there are graphics mods on PC...

so thats why you hid behind an alt. ok bud.

@dxmcat: omg...such gravity to the situation you propose.

.....

Well, I'm not saying that PC graphics aren't impressive. What I will say is that I think we've reached the point where even bad graphics are supposed to look pretty good. So good graphics are just kind of not as impressive any more just because they look good.

@BassMan said:

@Pedro said:

@BassMan said:

Why on earth would you play at 30fps with a GTX 1070? Aside from the shit console ports as mentioned earlier.

Firstly you asked if played games at 30fps on PC and the fact is some games are simply locked to 30fps which makes the answer blatantly obvious to anyone who games on PC. Besides that, I am human and as a human I have this incredible ability to adapt to minor things like framerates. You may need to upgrade to human status ;)

He has to be playing with a controller. Most games feel awful at sub 45 fps with a mouse, and 45 is just hitting that point where it's skirting on annoying. Playable, but can be annoying with small dips. 30 is just terrible. I've tried locking it to 30 and I just can't stand it with a mouse.

Imho couldn't care less, as long as the game is great.

Sure.

I moved from a 2560x1080 60hz monitor to a 3440x1440 120hz one,

I've never been this impressed in my life.

My mind is still blown every day

As consoles got closer to PC architecture this made the game library pretty much the same between both, giving PC developers little or no reason to not want a share of the console market too. This makes PC gaming extremely limited to what console hardware can achieve. That's why the PC narrative now is pretty much centred around FPS and not so much about visuals where the gains are much less noticeable.

And as much as PC gamers like to moan about how consoles are a limitation to their hardware's potential it's also true that now they don't even need to make petitions to have games. Also the modding community has done a great job in pushing PC way beyond consoles.

A trend I've noticed is this:

With graphics being so evolved as they are these days, there isn't a single game anymore that makes huge leaps in everything.

Nowadays you got several games that do something of amazing technical level, but not everything:

Battlefield 1 & Just Cause 4: Weather effects

Assassin's Creed Origins: Insanely detailed world (but character models look a bit bad)

Insurgency Sandstorm & Rising Storm 2: Insanely detailed weapons and weapon mechanics.

F.uck the point, It's more inteinterest how you have a 1070 and play at 30fps.

Didnt know it was possible unless you were purposely trying to get the games to run at 30fps.

The thing is that whenever I go back to PS4 it's shocking to me how much worse it looks. I'm about to get shocked at how bad Spider-Man looks, probably. But going back to PC it's less impressive how much better a game looks. Monster Hunter World and Assassins Creed Origins did show me that the PC is still so much better for playing games, performance-wise.

It depends on what you're looking for I guess. The difference has definitely moved from overall everything into details and resolution/fps/anti-aliasing/options. Even if PC would look worse than a console though, I would probably prefer playing on PC still. Because it offers so many other advantages over consoles.

Nope, obviously it's time for PC2. /sarcasm

Witcher 3 on PC blew me away (all things considered). Great performance, giant scope, yet so much detail. Truly a next gen game it was for me. I'd say it was Crysis of this gen. Squadron 42 looks pretty jaw dropping too, and then there is Cyberpunk 2077. But of course, we'll have to wait for couple of years for them to come out finally.

No graphics impress me any more. Im more impressed by the performance, scope and complexity of a game than its graphics nowadays. We have reached a stalemate with graphics progression as developers seem more interested in making their games run at playable frame-rates in 4k than progressing graphics tech; role on ray-tracing, lets see where that takes us.

It's just performance, we have hit diminishing returns.

@Cloud_imperium: Lets not forget The Witcher 3 ran on consoles at sub 30fps.

Same with AC: Unity: 24fps on consoles.

So yeah I'd say PC is still very impressive and leaps beyond consoles.

I agree. Notice how this thread is all about FPS. Last gen hermits would have devoured console peasants with raw technical power. Honestly, since I mainly play on my pc strategy games my top genre. I don't see a reason to spend thousands of dollars on a rig to play Multiplatform games. Just get a $250 console and $600 rig to play my strategy games.

Meh, my friend ultra The Witcher 3 on his pc, it looks increadible for sure but don't compare it to Crysis. Many games on a technical level can come close to Witcher. Nothing could possibly touch Crysis.

Also, Cyberpunk looks okay. If that's how next gen is looking than we're in for a very small leap. It looks like a top end current gen game. Someone posted pictures of RD2 and the character models alone kick the butt of Cyberpunk.

This will make the Pee Seas very Salty this time of year. :P

PC offers refined current generation graphics even though some PC's have a generational leap in raw power compared to a console.

A generational leap in graphics won't happen until the next wave of consoles release.

I own Witcher 3 both on PC/PS4 and boy, the difference is clearly day/night! It is very hard to be playing Witcher 3 on consoles compare to PC, 60fps is a hell of a difference. Not sure if Xbox One X has the option to play it in 60fps but if it does, then it's on par with PC version but this isn't saying much.

(The reason why I got witcher 3 PS4 version was reviewing purposes)

FACTS.

It's funny when a desperate hermit @DragonfireXZ95 asked me to show gameplay shots of console exclusives to prove that his Modded PC shots of The Witcher blew them away ... all he ended up doing was damage controlling them and flat out claimed they weren't gameplay because of how good they looked! LMAO

Check the thread yourself to see the pics I posted and you'll know every shot was a all real time gameplay shots.

DAMN!

Real self ownage right there!

The clown doesn't even know what the gameplay of our games looked like and made himself look like a fool in the process trying to deny them while campaigning for how I should be impressed by his gamey looking Witcher 3 shots.

That's proof of how PC graphics only using multiplats leaves a lot to be desired compared to console exclusives.

No but you would shit yourself if you saw Xbox One X graphics

Visually no. Playstation 4 has titles with much better presentation. Some PC Gamers try to cling onto graphics and about it, like anyone cared in the first place.

Substance wise? PC shits all over consoles, always has. Console games will never be as deep or complex. Especially the Playstations 4's gallery of shitty movie games that might as well be a screensaver.

It's easy for console gamers to write off a higher framerate and higher resolution like it's nothing.

But actually it makes all the difference in the world.

I don't see a single PS4 pro or Xbox One X game hitting 4K/60, they clearly aren't up to the task. While for PC gaming 60 fps seems to be the minimum.

I love replaying my older games on newer hardware, I recently replayed Battlefield 3 at 3440x1440, 120hz and a small tweak to make the colors pop more.

That game blew my mind and it was a 7- year old game O_O

Something console gamers will never experience, because they need to keep rebuying and hoping for remasters.

So much salty Hermit shit in this 1 post it's unreal!

Weird, I've been called a lemming, cow and hermit.

So which one is it ?

Extremely overrated. My PS4 Pro takes massive wet dumps on my GTX 1080.

And HDR is the biggest game changer this gen, PC is in 3rd place in HDR Support

Its more about the framerate now.

Speaking of Crysis, look at the visual quality of this small indie game called Green Hell

its as good as Crysis.

Couldn't said it any better...

60 fps ?!? Never heard such crap in the 80's 90's, tech wasn't there yet!!! /s

Are you joking? Most Nintendo games were 60 fps.

@DragonfireXZ95:

Sure on 50hz crt tv ^^

@scatteh316: You guys need to make up your minds if I'm a Cow or Hermit. Pick one and stick with it!

@DragonfireXZ95: /s indicates sarcasm.

Oh yeah, that's universal. Lol. I thought it was a typo.

I've never called you a cow so stop putting words in to my mouth...

@scatteh316: I implied as "you guys"

So I don't have to pick one then do I.... smh

We are only in the 4th generation of PC's ^__^

And for a while, too.

I wonder what will come after microprocessors.

No.. God of War looks better than anything currently on PC. As will Death Stranding and TLoU2

@GioVela2010: that’s something to consider. Most monitors which PC gamers like to play on, don’t do HDR.

So while something like the TW3 is 30fps on the Pro and 60fps on PC...there’s many games that do HDR that make up for it.

Especially when games like TW3 don’t need 60fps. I have it on the Pro, X, and PC and I never had a problem with any of them.

Quantum processors obviously. Though we have been long past the microprocessor era and every electronic is now fabricated on the nanometer scale. I wonder why don't we call it nanoprocessor.

Basically resolution and effects with a good framerate are the minimum advantages you get from PC over consoles, which is good enough on its own.

The other creative stuff depends totally on the game, but even then, that stuff is still executed better on PC since the hardware allows for it to be done with better framerates.

To add, imagine if the talent that went towards games like Uncharted 4 was on PC? Excellent animation and graphics without frame drops and/or 30fps "locked," also at higher resolutions. Too bad it's not profitable to market to users with high end hardware solely.

I'm not saying consoles are bad. PC allows for more headroom for the artists and designers to make their magic.

Devs settle for parity these days remember Watch Dogs 2012 and the Division 2013 E3 trailers that was the PC versions we should of had. I hate parity with a passion I own a gaming PC and a PS4 and **** parity. Every system should be able to reach it's own strengths and not be held back.

I dunno. I've been told that Quantum computing requires a lot of cooling and is not super useful for traditional games. But I could see future PC's using quantum components at some point to help with probability calculations, local machine learning, running through big data and stuff like that.

I have the feeling the next big step will have to do with nanotech but in the shape of new material, or maybe modular systems. Where you can practically place a gpu-box on top of an apu-box, plug in your drive and have it function as a PC without anything else required.

Or maybe not cloud computing but a more local variant (in-house or in the street?) that basically unifies all local computing and with quantum computing predicts the computing that will need to be done.

Or we'll develop a high level A.I. that can program our PC programs in ways we can't directly translate/read/make sense of as human beings but that is much more efficient than anything we write. Kinda like a super compiler that doesn't need to comply to standards and automagically makes it probable that algorithms run nicely together.

The possibilities fascinate me. I want to work on it right now ^__^

I really don't care either way. Anyone can call me whatever floats your boat :)

agreed.

When they start talking about 'parity' and put 'mobile' in that group what they are saying is 'we plan to tone down the PC version so that it will work on a cell phone'

nope, I want none of that.

Thank god for Steam, Unity 3D and Visual Studio to help indies otherwise it would be a horrible industry