E3 2018: PC Gaming Show!

Several multiplats have a higher score on XB or PS4, yet are better on PC.

The games would be objectively better with higher performance and that would lead to higher scores.

This show was awful

Fortunately the EA, MS, and Bethesda shows were also PC gaming shows.

Yakuza, finally.

SONY cements 5th straight E3 win...no surprise when your focus is on world class gaming. Thank you SONY.

You PC gamers better thank MS because without them you guys would be Fk!!!!!!!!

Also No Sunset Overdrive or Halo MCC.

This conference is shit. No good PC only games. More like Port Computer if you ask me lol.

show was awful as expected. the only developers doing anything worthwhile are console developers. pc gamers are lucky they get more ports these days.

They don't call them master beggar race for nothing.....

Probably $1000 every time for the next 10 years.

I would need citation that Bethesda Games Studio, Blizzard, Firaxis, Creative Assembly, and CDPR are creating console ports. Either it is exclusive or made ground up on PC.

More games just happen to be multiplats these days, it's the nature of the industry, and PC has no big company backing it and isn't really seen as competition to make any sense for exclusives unless the genre simply can't work on consoles.

Does it matter when they run and look substantially better, and when you have 1:1 the entire library of (XB) and several PS exclusives, on top of 3 exclusive genres? I mean, you don't end up with 110 more high scoring titles than the 2nd next system this gen without a reason.

Well, if third person console triple A games are the same because of the camera perspective... then why can't Sim City and this Rimjob game also be the same?

because I have played AAA titles and I know that the copy catness goes much deeper then just the camera, unlike indies

that is why

They just had this conference just to say they had one. PCs are truly playing second fiddle to console no matter what graphics superiority it boast.

Or quantity of games, or quality of games, or number of developers catering for it, or over all revenue, or options to play the way you want, or options for upgrading hardware when you want, or options for modding many games, or the best experience and performance in the vast majority of multi-plats, or the entire genres exclusive to it.

Totally second fiddle to consoles.

@zaryia: they are all console ports. lol how was that ground up for the pc version of witcher 3? oh wait. it went down as one of the biggest downgrades of the generation. how about that mouse control too? oh no wait. games certainly run faster on more powerful gpus, but they dont look substantially better. they are minorly more polished with better lod and higher res shadow maps. but the core artwork and engine are the same. and this is moot anyway when they get blown away by sonys 1st party output. so either way the cream of the crop from a visual perspective is on ps4. TLOU 2 once again raising the bar at this years E3. but enjoy the massive metro downgrade since its original showing.

in before he posts screens from the cyberpunk trailer because he doesnt even realize its fake

edit - to respond to some of the other developers you mentioned.

blizzard - has made balance choices on overwatch that negatively affect pc but are required to balance out console due to the differences between input methods. yep that sounds like ground up for the pc to me.

bethesda - i dont even understand why you would list this publisher. they have been a console first developer since 360. remember when they had to completely gut all lighting and shadows from oblivion because it wouldnt run permanently on consoles? yeah another clearly pc focused decision there. ground up work indeed.

fireaxis and creative assembly - these 2 make pc exclusives no doubt. super low budget and not very interesting for a discussion or the industry in general, but some of the CIV games are very good. creative assembly is good at making buggy, broken RTS games that have trouble functioning.

Bethesda Games Studio, Blizzard, Firaxis, Creative Assembly, and CDPR games are not console ports.

Witcher 3 was not a console port. Skyrim was not a console port. Fallout 4 was not a console port. XCOM I and II are not console ports. Total War and WarHammer are not a console ports. Civilization is not a console port. Legion was not a console port. Heroes of the Storm was not a console port. Overwatch was not a console port.

You lied, these games objectively are not console ports. By definition. Please offer Citation if you disagree.

P.S. Bethesda Game Studio isn't a publisher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Game_Studios

P.S.S. What does it matter as long as they are all, by far, better played on PC - and that PC ends up with the most playable AAA titles any given gen? Seems like you are damage controlling by arguing semantics, over the end results.

I think people who don't game on PC have discovered that if they make bad things up about it it will trigger a lot of protest. Doesn't matter if they have no idea what they are talking about. They win if they get the reaction.

of course they are ports. they are designed from the ground up around the consoles. i already said 2 of the developers you mentioned make pc exclusives that arent technically impressive at all. i dont know why you listed specific games by those 2 developers. all the bethesda games you mentioned are console ports. overwatch is a console port. again they made balance decisions around the console version first and foremost and carry them right over to the PC even tho Jeff has admitted they might not be favorable to that platform. but its "too much work to balance two separate versions of the game". shows where their focus is tho

Calling any developer a "console developer" in this day and age is largely moot. Unless you're first-party, or with a console-centric publisher, you're releasing games across multiple platforms... Or at the very least, designing them as such. Look at Dark Souls Remastered... It finally incorporated additions from DSFix... A mod released forever ago. I played DS:PtD with DSFix for 32 hours, and only bought the remastered because it was half price.

You need to prove this.

use some common sense. back when pc devs actually made advanced games, they were very different. look at battlefield 3 on pc vs console. crysis 1 on pc vs console. unreal tournament 2004 v unreal championship 2. all completely different experiences. all advanced games now are designed in every aspect around the consoles and then ported to the pc platform

You tell me to use common sense and ask me to go back to over a decade ago? Right...

@Juub1990: thats how far back you have to go to find high end games that arent console ports. battlefield 3 isnt 10 years yet btw

@m3dude1: Comparing the landscape of gaming now vs 10+ years ago is very stupid. At the time there was a marked difference between PC and consoles. Now consoles are really just closed PC’s.

Compare the PS3’s Cell+RSX to PC hardware. Odds are you‘ll have a very difficult time making direct comparisons. Now? PS4 basically has off the shelf PC parts. The games are developed for multiple platforms with regards to everyone at once. They aren’t console ports.

Console versions these days are simply lesser versions of the PC ones. A decade ago at times they weren’t even the same version because it was impossible.

I want a link showing these games were primarily created on/for consoles and then ported to PC during development.

Bethesda Games Studio, Blizzard, Firaxis, Creative Assembly, and CDPR games are not console ports.

These companies do not make console ports.

Overwatch is not a console port, it was made ground up for PC. There is zero evidence showing Blizzard made it for consoles and later ported the game to PC. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up as it is a great example of the opposite of a Console Port. Overwatch as an e-sport is primarily played, created, and balanced for PC. Same goes for Legion and HoTs.

Witcher 2 and Witcher 3 are not console ports. CyberPunk is not a console port. They were not ported from consoles. There is zero evidence showing CDPR made it for consoles and later ported the game to PC.

Skyrim and Fallout 4 were not console ports. FO76 is not a console port. Starfield is not a console port. They were not ported from consoles. There is zero evidence showing BGS made it for consoles and later ported the game to PC.

etc.

You're literally making stuff up.

P.S. How is any of this relevant when all of these games, PC port or Console port (or simultaneous creation), are all better on PC? You seem to be more concerned about semantics rather than real life results. Every single game listed above is substantially better to play on PC. Who gives a shit how it came about?

You're more concerned about making excuses as to why all games suck on your toy, rather than addressing why all games suck on your toy.

it has nothing to do with hardware and everything to do with the market. its funny you point out cell as the ps360 era was exactly when almost all high end development jumped ship to consoles. it was the beginning of the end. the original xbox was a pentium 3 and a geforce 3 with an extra vertex unit. so it was as similar to pcs as the current consoles are. that didnt prevent developers from developing games designed around the pcs capablities. see the original battlefield games, unreal tournament and lots more

But it does. Different versions of games were often made for different consoles because of the dissimilarities. This hasn't been the case in well over a decade. In time's past some consoles were literally lacking key technological advancements that prevented them from even running some games. These days a PS4 can do almost everything a PC does except on a smaller scale. In the past polygon counts were a huge difference maker but these days?

For instance, Kingdom Come: Deliverance was first developed on PC and then ported to consoles but the difference isn't as pronounced as the difference we had 10+ years ago. Sure, it's significant but it's still ultimately the same version. Such a feat would have been literally impossible in the PS2 era. Before you point to the pre-release screenshots, know that the old pictures are taken from a very old, unstable alpha build and the game runs like hot garbage even on high-end PC's.

Last but not least the "hur hur, held back by consoles" doesn't hold any water any more because even PC exclusives still need to take into consideration lower-end hardware weaker than consoles. As much as people like talking about the OG Crysis, it scaled remarkably well on lower-end hardware provided you had a decent CPU. Adding consoles to the development is simply throwing in some lower-end hardware into the mix that needed to be taken care of anyway.

The only times I think PC versions might suffer because of the consoles is when it's a CPU-bound scenario such as Fallout: New Vegas. So yes, PC might be held back in terms of games scales or complexity but in graphics? Kinda doubt it. Look at what the PS4 can do despite its modest hardware. Let's not act like the baseline for a PC is an i5 6th gen + GTX 1060 + 16GB RAM.

Ooblets is my jam.

PC's don't use console ports or they're not held back by console............Lmao.

Then why can a GTX1080ti run most things at 4k/60?

If console was never factor for PC then PC games would be that far in front technically and graphically that even a GTX1080ti would only to run games at 1080/30 on max settings.

May I remind everyone that the last time a TRUE PC game came out with a TRUE PC game engine that was not held bad by console influence was in 2007 ........we all know that game as Crysis.

And look what that did to gaming PC's.....it ate them for breakfast....

Game engines being designed on console/with console in mind is the reason you guys get to play at higher resolutions and frame rates.

Without console the base limitation would be much much higher and thus the resolutions and frame rates you guys currently enjoy would be much much lower.

Kind of funny how consoles get mocked for 30fps as without console PC would be running about the same........

And I wonder how much of you would still have the same opinion on 30fps being sucky.......Lmaoooo

PC's are MASSIVELY held back by console.....

It's clear they have no clue what they are talking about. Already explained it once to a few of them however at this point in time i just feel like little kids screaming for attention.

How did i play with my buddies shooters at 200 fps on a 100hz screen in the year 2000?

How did i walk in many games on PC at 100fps without any issue that where pretty much not playable on consoles?

Did you know ultra settings or "max" settings on PC originally where designed to torture future PC hardware? That nobody was playing on ultra or max to start with other then to benchmark there hardware? that's how benchmarks where even created.

PC had many GPU killers and CPU killers throughout its generations but all of those games where perfectly playable on lower settings and with lower settings i mean not "future proof" settings. like for example witcher 2 ubersampling that basically doubled if not trippled or quadtrippled the resolution even while 1200p was already 4k resolution for that time period.

It's like trying to run games currently at 8-16k on a single gpu and see double if not single digits with medium settings? so how is this any different from that time period? It's not.

Some games like crysis with its dx10 mode was nothing but a push to showcase how future games would look like and was never mend to be played for high performance solutions. that's why there was a dx9 mode and they only focused on that mode to start with as that was where the market was.

Metro had metric ton of fog / shadow detail / tessellation / lighting sources that bounces well just read up on it which made the game look completely next generation. Shoot a hole in a plate, see the light bounce through it to a wall with smoke and physics everywhere. Guess what consoles got a completely stripped a nuked version of it that didn't even came close towards how visually impressive the game was for its time. Even the redux versions didn't include any of those visual solutions because it would drop the gpu's on consoles down to single digits.

I had 2x 580's top gpu's, and even got a 3rd one and could barely managed to hit 30 fps at 1200p. However 1200p was pretty much the 4k from that time period it still run at everything maxed. Hell AMD gpu's would sit at single digits because of the physics it couldn't even remotely push forwards. I could easily push 100 fps with just lowering the future tech down. Because what the hell was even using dx11, it took forever for that tech to even get adopted.

PC doesn't need games anymore to murder its performance as games always murdered performance on PC. Because we can mod or push visuals far beyond a title could ever do on consoles. Hell go play skyline cities and get a million citizen in your city. See how your 50k PC is going to hold up. It's not.

Performance on PC was always decided by the games you push towards it. Counterstrike = high fps or it's simple not playable. RTS visually it's downgraded by the scale is massive most of the time, games like metro or witcher 2, scale are far smaller but visually gets a push forwards massively etc etc.

Dude, as a mainly RTS player, the amount of awesome games coming out in this list alone are staggering.

http://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/new-rts-games