post a shot with aferburner overlay, secondly that screen does not match up with the screens freedom has been posting. that scene is also a best case scenario for fps.
It's a stupid topic and one the so called "master race" is to stupid to figure out.
Why are consoles holding graphics back, what exactly is stopping PC studios back from making those high end graphical games, could it be not many have the PC's capable of running those high end game meaning it's not economically viable the shock and horror of it all ROFL.
@walloftruth: No it's not the same thing, especially in the case of Infamous SS where NO AA are super sampling is in the photo mode. I'm tired of people who haven't played the game making comments on how infamous SS looks. It's photomode basically does nothing but move the camera.
@FreedomFreeLife: Nice bullshots of Crysis bro. The funny thing is regardless of what mod you use the AA on the foliage in Crysis is terrible. UC4 shits all over the original Crysis and the fact we have pc gamers arguing this shows how pathetic you trolls have become.
It's exactly what cows do with photo mode in DriveClub and InFamous:SS though.
You can easily fix that by using transparency supersampling or by downsampling from 4k. Both of these methods need a good graphics card though, at least a 760 is needed to run max settings.
are you serious? a 760 has no shot using transparency supersampling or regular downsampling. i own crysis and its impossible to play the game at the quality of those e_tiled_screenshot generated screens. downsampling from 4k doesnt get you close.
I've made that screenshot on my 760 2GB (OCed) with Very High settings and no mods/AA. Since I'm playing on a 1080p I didn't see any jaggies whatsoever, not even on vegetation. The game can around 34FPS, which is still very much playable IMO. The only problem I had was with the last level on the aircraft carrier, the game would only run at 23-28FPS mostly, not sure why.
Lmao... I play maxed out with max AA at 2560x1440 with an average fps of 100 and I'm CPU limited.
when you report to "show me a roadside texture as good as this", youre owned. pcars overall looks like shit.
So you can't do it then? Better luck next time... So that's you owned then.... You may now proceed to come up with some bullshit logic about how it's me that's owned and not you.
LOL I always love this claim, because as we all know no developer could possibly just make a game for the PC only and ramp the graphics up so high only the top 1% of pc gamers could play it....yep they aren't able to do it because of some sort of mind control employed by Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft that keep them from doing it.
It couldn't possibly be that they would only be serving 1% of people and only about 0.01% of that would actually buy the game instead of getting it through illegal means.
Not consoles but the huge budget needed to make a game shine. Most games published today are still developed upon old engines because they need to be sold to the maximum number of potential buyers and making an AAA game with a new engine made from scratch would literally kill most of the big companies (they've learned the lesson this time it seems).
Dragon Age Inquisition for example. As stunning as it may be in some aspects it's still a DX9 game even in the PS4, and even games like Mario Kart 8 (in a weaker hardware compared to the PS4) use more advanced effects than it. As for now, only the first party studios and the few that can afford to release their games only in next-gen hardware have shown what the next gen of consoles can be able to do, and that's only EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.
I've made that screenshot on my 760 2GB (OCed) with Very High settings and no mods/AA. Since I'm playing on a 1080p I didn't see any jaggies whatsoever, not even on vegetation. The game can around 34FPS, which is still very much playable IMO. The only problem I had was with the last level on the aircraft carrier, the game would only run at 23-28FPS mostly, not sure why.
Lmao... I play maxed out with max AA at 2560x1440 with an average fps of 100 and I'm CPU limited.
I'm happy for your wallet, but no need to be disrespectful by laughing.
LOL I always love this claim, because as we all know no developer could possibly just make a game for the PC only and ramp the graphics up so high only the top 1% of pc gamers could play it....yep they aren't able to do it because of some sort of mind control employed by Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft that keep them from doing it.
It couldn't possibly be that they would only be serving 1% of people and only about 0.01% of that would actually buy the game instead of getting it through illegal means.
LOL I always love this claim, because as we all know no developer could possibly just make a game for the PC only and ramp the graphics up so high only the top 1% of pc gamers could play it....yep they aren't able to do it because of some sort of mind control employed by Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft that keep them from doing it.
It couldn't possibly be that they would only be serving 1% of people and only about 0.01% of that would actually buy the game instead of getting it through illegal means.
Boom! this boy knows the crack :)
If I am wrong please say but doesn't star citizen poop all over your party?
@FreedomFreeLife: Consoles aren't holding anything back, PC games don't have any limits, so why aren't they having so much better graphics than consoles? Because it costs too much to make good looking games. We are closing in when games can not look that much better. The singularity is what is holding graphics back, not consoles. There are plenty of pc exclusives that could have made consoles look obselete a long time ago. Yet the PS3 and 360 managed to have a 8 year life cycle
@o0squishy0o: Star Citizen is a bispoke piece of PC software that shouldn't and cannot be compared to anything on console because it will never be able to run on console (because of the hardware limitations). Also the devs specifically states it will never ever come to console, so its a pointless article..
Oh look!!! consoles are holding graphics back... ohh look! he is a game that shows just how much PC is ahead of Console in the graphical department. thats a massive contradiction, how can consoles be holding graphical fidelity back when we have SC?
PC and Consoles are different beats... different developers have different preverences. Consoles can't hold software engineering back, SC Proves my point!
when you report to "show me a roadside texture as good as this", youre owned. pcars overall looks like shit.
So you can't do it then? Better luck next time... So that's you owned then.... You may now proceed to come up with some bullshit logic about how it's me that's owned and not you.
Have a nice day.
PCars = traditional texture maps. DriveClub = physically based material pipeline. Not even a close call.
when you report to "show me a roadside texture as good as this", youre owned. pcars overall looks like shit.
So you can't do it then? Better luck next time... So that's you owned then.... You may now proceed to come up with some bullshit logic about how it's me that's owned and not you.
Have a nice day.
PCars = traditional texture maps. DriveClub = physically based material pipeline. Not even a close call.
I'm sick of noobs touting PBR like it's the next coming of god, yes it's nice but it doesn't automatically make games that use it better looking then games that don't.
That grass, wall and tree textures look like shit. Typical problem with Drive Club, the assets are low quality.
you were crushed for a year when the new consoles launched. ryse and unity came out and you had 2 months of parity, now youre even further behind, and theres nothing coming soon. pc ports are getting worse and worse on average too.
you were crushed for a year when the new consoles launched. ryse and unity came out and you had 2 months of parity, now youre even further behind, and theres nothing coming soon. pc ports are getting worse and worse on average too.
Log in to comment