I'm sorry for the most part PC games don't look THAT much better than consoles..

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

It's a bad example to begin with. There are games developers put enhancements in for on the computer, and games they just port with minimal effort. Re5 is the latter. I wouldn't think twice about getting it on my 360 if it were cheaper, not that I would get re5.

If people want a real comparison, they should look at something like just cause 2.

AnnoyedDragon

Which is a shame, because it would be cheap for a game like RES5 to offer better resolution art assets on PC like textures. You can put mad amounts of AA on the game with minimal performance hit; because your hardware is so underutilized.

It is pretty much a 360 cut and paste, no/minimal enhancements.

Ive played RE5, it doesn`t look like that on the 360.

ActicEdge

A lot of people say this when they see a direct feed image.

It's not like you are looking at the game with any clarity, sat across the room looking at a low pixel pitch screen.

True enough, but then why are we using screens for comparison? If that is how it really looks its unrealistic to take super close up screens when no one will view it like that right?

I'm reminded of something I talked about not long ago. How many console gamers actually know what they are looking at?

I've had people say their games were 1080p, because the box said so. People who have accused me of altering images; because their mental image of the game looked better than the raw feed one I posted.

Sat across the room, looking at a 720p image getting stretched across a low pixel pitch screen, how many console gamers actually know what visuals their games are producing?

I'm reminded of something I talked about not long ago. How many console gamers actually know what they are looking at?

I've had people say their games were 1080p, because the box said so. People who have accused me of altering images; because their mental image of the game looked better than the raw feed one I posted.

Sat across the room, looking at a 720p image getting stretched across a low pixel pitch screen, how many console gamers actually know what visuals their games are producing?

AnnoyedDragon

Nearly none of them if you ask me.

It's either Fallout 3 multiplat comparions or Crysis not being all that,

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

Why dont you try getting away from the compressed 720p video that looses a ton of quality from 1080p, and look at these screenshots?

PC:

360:

Filthybastrd

Ive played RE5, it doesn`t look like that on the 360.

Coming from Ferret (not commenting on him otherwise), that's exactly how it looks. You probably had a greater impression on your big TV but it could have been much better.

(If only me and my friends could afford big TVs. we're poor ass Uni and College kids). The overwhelming response to my post is it does look like that so I know when I'm beat. I believe you guys. Will anyone really view it at that distance though? Does that make for a realistic comparison?

True enough, but then why are we using screens for comparison? If that is how it really looks its unrealistic to take super close up screens when no one will view it like that right?

ActicEdge

Well that depends on the comparison, whether it is technical or aesthetic.

With an aesthetic comparison you are more concerned with how everything adds together to produce a visually appealing image, a more subjective comparison. With technicals asset resolution and effect quality are what is being compared, a more objective comparison.

If someone were to claim for instance that Uncharted 2 has better textures than Crysis, a close inspection would be expected.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Ive played RE5, it doesn`t look like that on the 360.

ActicEdge

Coming from Ferret (not commenting on him otherwise), that's exactly how it looks. You probably had a greater impression on your big TV but it could have been much better.

(If only me and my friends could afford big TVs. we're poor ass Uni and College kids). The overwhelming response to my post is it does look like that so I know when I'm beat. I believe you guys. Will anyone really view it at that distance though? Does that make for a realistic comparison?

Ok, so it looks like that to you at whatever distance you're playing... It could look much better.

Edit: Wii only players also think that SMG2 is amazing gfx wise.

Except the best a console can do, cannot match the best a PC can do...... even if you play a PC game on the same tv as a console game, chances are it will look better.

lettuceman44

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Ive played RE5, it doesn`t look like that on the 360.

Coming from Ferret (not commenting on him otherwise), that's exactly how it looks. You probably had a greater impression on your big TV but it could have been much better.

(If only me and my friends could afford big TVs. we're poor ass Uni and College kids). The overwhelming response to my post is it does look like that so I know when I'm beat. I believe you guys. Will anyone really view it at that distance though? Does that make for a realistic comparison?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

Coming from Ferret (not commenting on him otherwise), that's exactly how it looks. You probably had a greater impression on your big TV but it could have been much better.

Filthybastrd

(If only me and my friends could afford big TVs. we're poor ass Uni and College kids). The overwhelming response to my post is it does look like that so I know when I'm beat. I believe you guys. Will anyone really view it at that distance though? Does that make for a realistic comparison?

Ok, so it looks like that to you at whatever distance you're playing... It could look much better.

Not quite, I can fully admit you guys are right and that's what the title looks like up close but I would be lying if I said RE5 looked like a blurry mess when I played it. Perhaps the distance is allowing the eyes to miss some of the details but when I played it I don't remember it looking like the screen. It very much could of, but I didn't see it like that for w/e reason? I agree RE5 could of looked better though.

I also think SMG is a nice looking game. No graphics king but it implements its techniques well and understands its limits, I feel that's an important part of a games look to.

You should show that Prototype comparsion 720 vs 1080...04dcarraher

I did that on another forum once, here's the results.

Anyway.

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]

Except the best a console can do, cannot match the best a PC can do...... even if you play a PC game on the same tv as a console game, chances are it will look better.

Teufelhuhn

Those differences are "big deal". At least they are to system warriors or does the Wii not exists?

What if a PC gamer plays on his TV? Not that I ever would but cutting console games slack because you sit further away from the screen seems a lot more dumb.

Better graphics are better graphics or did we not have a **** of redundant Fallout 3 comparisons?

Filthybastrd

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

True enough, but then why are we using screens for comparison? If that is how it really looks its unrealistic to take super close up screens when no one will view it like that right?

AnnoyedDragon

Well that depends on the comparison, whether it is technical or aesthetic.

With an aesthetic comparison you are more concerned with how everything adds together to produce a visually appealing image, a more subjective comparison. With technicals asset resolution and effect quality are what is being compared, a more objective comparison.

If someone were to claim for instance that Uncharted 2 has better textures than Crysis, a close inspection would be expected.

That's agreeable. I feel though that for this particular thread wouldn't we be more interested in common conditions? I mean, upon close inspection the PC just mops the floor with consoles (though in the same notion, PC games generally are suspose to be played like 2 feet from a screen so they need the extra visual fidelity) but in a common comparison, I don't think the differences are super huge for a normal person. Is that fair?

Actually that is how it looks like in game on my friend's PS3.

Hakkai007

Unless your friend is streaming Youtube on his PS3, it doesn't look like that. Video games don't have compression artifacts.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Actually that is how it looks like in game on my friend's PS3.

Teufelhuhn

Unless your friend is streaming Youtube on his PS3, it doesn't look like that. Video games don't have compression artifacts.

Can I ask you a tech related question while your here? Its kinda related to PC and consoles.

That's agreeable. I feel though that for this particular thread wouldn't we be more interested in common conditions? I mean, upon close inspection the PC just mops the floor with consoles (though in the same notion, PC games generally are suspose to be played like 2 feet from a screen so they need the extra visual fidelity) but in a common comparison, I don't think the differences are super huge for a normal person. Is that fair?

ActicEdge

That would depend on what you mean by "common comparison".

If we are talking about a cross platform game, then it wouldn't really reflect the systems capabilities. As it has been shown with RES5, the assets weren't enhanced when it was ported to PC. Same for games like Mass Effect 2.

A none-enhanced console port to PC is essentially just the console version, resolution and quality filters are the only differentiators. Stick it exactly at console settings (720p, AA) and no differences are to be expected, but this would say nothing about PC capability; just that it's a console limited port.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

What if a PC gamer plays on his TV? Not that I ever would but cutting console games slack because you sit further away from the screen seems a lot more dumb.

Better graphics are better graphics or did we not have a **** of redundant Fallout 3 comparisons?

Teufelhuhn

It does not represent anyone's specific experience. Screenshots demonstrate the visual fidelity realtive to the individual versions of a game.

Sure, you can think such a comparison "dumb" but that leaves me wondering why you're commenting in the first place.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Unless your friend is streaming Youtube on his PS3, it doesn't look like that. Video games don't have compression artifacts.

ActicEdge

Can I ask you a tech related question while your here? Its kinda related to PC and consoles.

:P stolen but seemed to fit

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Actually that is how it looks like in game on my friend's PS3.

ActicEdge

Unless your friend is streaming Youtube on his PS3, it doesn't look like that. Video games don't have compression artifacts.

Can I ask you a tech related question while your here? Its kinda related to PC and consoles.

It does not represent anyone's specific experience. Screenshots demonstrate the visual fidelity realtive to the individual versions of a game.

Sure, you can think such a comparison "dumb" but that leaves me wondering why you're commenting in the first place.

Filthybastrd

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

That's agreeable. I feel though that for this particular thread wouldn't we be more interested in common conditions? I mean, upon close inspection the PC just mops the floor with consoles (though in the same notion, PC games generally are suspose to be played like 2 feet from a screen so they need the extra visual fidelity) but in a common comparison, I don't think the differences are super huge for a normal person. Is that fair?

AnnoyedDragon

That would depend on what you mean by "common comparison".

If we are talking about a cross platform game, then it wouldn't really reflect the systems capabilities. As it has been shown with RES5, the assets weren't enhanced when it was ported to PC. Same for games like Mass Effect 2.

A none-enhanced console port to PC is essentially just the console version, resolution and quality filters are the only differentiators. Stick it exactly at console settings (720p, AA) and no differences are to be expected, but this would say nothing about PC capability; just that it's a console limited port.

By common comparison I just mean played under normal conditions. So ideally a Console game won't be viewed at 2 feet and I would suspose part of it was designed with that intention. But obviously in a pure comparison the PC is going to win, its just capable of much more.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

It does not represent anyone's specific experience. Screenshots demonstrate the visual fidelity realtive to the individual versions of a game.

Sure, you can think such a comparison "dumb" but that leaves me wondering why you're commenting in the first place.

Teufelhuhn

LOL, excellent!!!! Such an argument shall receive no criticism from me:) I I'm the last bastion of real Crysis Screenshots myself :P

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

Unless your friend is streaming Youtube on his PS3, it doesn't look like that. Video games don't have compression artifacts.

Teufelhuhn

Can I ask you a tech related question while your here? Its kinda related to PC and consoles.

Is it difficult to do a cross platform PC 360 online game? Someone was telling me it was incredibly easy and it wasn't done for competitive reasons. They also said the 360 and PC were the exact same architecture and that the code would be easily connected. Is this true?

By common comparison I just mean played under normal conditions. So ideally a Console game won't be viewed at 2 feet and I would suspose part of it was designed with that intention. But obviously in a pure comparison the PC is going to win, its just capable of much more.

ActicEdge

Regardless of the distance the console version is viewed at, what's being compared is the actual video output of the console. People may very well claim that console games are supposed to be viewed at that distance, but then we are entering subjective territory; which is very difficult to debate constructively.

If I console gamer argues there is little to no visual benefit on PC when compared to consoles, that calls for a technical comparison; which must be done on objective grounds. This means comparing the raw none-modifed output of both platforms.

The console gamer may very well argue it "doesn't look like that on their TV", which will be the case; given the environment they are viewing the image. But the raw output IS what they are essentially looking at, regardless of whether or not they think it matches their mental image.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

By common comparison I just mean played under normal conditions. So ideally a Console game won't be viewed at 2 feet and I would suspose part of it was designed with that intention. But obviously in a pure comparison the PC is going to win, its just capable of much more.

AnnoyedDragon

Regardless of the distance the console version is viewed at, what's being compared is the actual video output of the console. People may very well claim that console games are supposed to be viewed at that distance, but then we are entering subjective territory; which is very difficult to debate constructively.

If I console gamer argues there is little to no visual benefit on PC when compared to consoles, that calls for a technical comparison; which must be done on objective grounds. This means comparing the raw none-modifed output of both platforms.

The console gamer may very well argue it "doesn't look like that on their TV", which will be the case; given the environment they are viewing the image. But the raw output IS what they are essentially looking at, regardless of whether or not they think it matches their mental image.

Maybe I read it wrong but wasn't the argument the games look a good bit better but not leaps and bounds? Look as in, what he viewed from his console (normal condition for a console) vs what he viewed on his PC (same bit, can't remember if his PC was hooked up to his TV though so forgive me)? I mean to me, comparing raw objective data only does so much because a console is not going to be viewed like that so why compare it in a way that highlights its weakness and not where it is suspose to perform?

It may be that the games all underperform in head to head tech but we aren't honestly ever going to be viewing head to head. When someone says, that they don't see a bug difference in viewing their TV and their PC, I don't really think head to head does well to prove them wrong. I also agree, head to head is objective but objective isn't always the whole story.

Maybe I read it wrong but wasn't the argument the games look a good bit better but not leaps and bounds? Look as in, what he viewed from his console (normal condition for a console) vs what he viewed on his PC (same bit, can't remember if his PC was hooked up to his TV though so forgive me)? I mean to me, comparing raw objective data only does so much because a console is not going to be viewed like that so why compare it in a way that highlights its weakness and not where it is suspose to perform?

It may be that the games all underperform in head to head tech but we aren't honestly ever going to be viewing head to head. When someone says, that they don't see a bug difference in viewing their TV and their PC, I don't really think head to head does well to prove them wrong. I also agree, head to head is objective but objective isn't always the whole story.

ActicEdge

As I said, you cannot use what different people claim to be seeing when playing on a TV. Arguably a console gamer is always going to claim the game looks better than any raw material provided, they are staring at an upscalled image at a distance.

How then can a comparison be performed? Especially in threads like this, when such a comparison is essentially being demanded.

Regardless of what people think they are seeing, raw footage/images show what they are actually looking at.

Is it difficult to do a cross platform PC 360 online game? Someone was telling me it was incredibly easy and it wasn't done for competitive reasons. They also said the 360 and PC were the exact same architecture and that the code would be easily connected. Is this true?

ActicEdge

Its obviously gonna look worse when your 1 foot away from a monitor. If you put the 360 and PC version on a 1080p TV, sat 6 ft away, and tried to tell the difference, Im sure itd be minimal. Since thats the way most console gamers played it, no one cares what it looks like from 1 foot away.h575309

My friend who owns every current gen console plus hundreds of games from them could tell the difference between the game Tron Evolution on the 360 and PC.

He uses a 1920x1080 42inch tv and plays from his couch on both setups.

One big thing I notice from console versions is the bland textures that lack some of the color and detail.

Some people seem to forget that even if a texture file is the same resolution they could have drastic differences in size depending on the variations in that texture.

And that will use much more ram. So for consoles they tone it down and add a heavy contrast filter to hide the imperfections.

Um, no, there are so many differences it's not even funny.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Is it difficult to do a cross platform PC 360 online game? Someone was telling me it was incredibly easy and it wasn't done for competitive reasons. They also said the 360 and PC were the exact same architecture and that the code would be easily connected. Is this true?

Teufelhuhn

Thank you, answers my question perfectly :)

[QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"]You played Crysis maxed out but can't run Bad Company 2? tagyhag

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Maybe I read it wrong but wasn't the argument the games look a good bit better but not leaps and bounds? Look as in, what he viewed from his console (normal condition for a console) vs what he viewed on his PC (same bit, can't remember if his PC was hooked up to his TV though so forgive me)? I mean to me, comparing raw objective data only does so much because a console is not going to be viewed like that so why compare it in a way that highlights its weakness and not where it is suspose to perform?

It may be that the games all underperform in head to head tech but we aren't honestly ever going to be viewing head to head. When someone says, that they don't see a bug difference in viewing their TV and their PC, I don't really think head to head does well to prove them wrong. I also agree, head to head is objective but objective isn't always the whole story.

AnnoyedDragon

As I said, you cannot use what different people claim to be seeing when playing on a TV. Arguably a console gamer is always going to claim the game looks better than any raw material provided, they are staring at an upscalled image at a distance.

How then can a comparison be performed? Especially in threads like this, when such a comparison is essentially being demanded.

Regardless of what people think they are seeing, raw footage/images show what they are actually looking at.

That's pretty much the idea I was making, as distance increases the ability to see fine detail diminishes and flaws are hidden. This is how I would suspose console games are made to look.

Ideally, the comparison wouldn't need to be done because visuals are a subjective issue but in terms of SW I agree we need to use direct tech. I am just making the point that to an average person under average conditions, I don't think the difference is going to be very big.

That's pretty much the idea I was making, as distance increases the ability to see fine detail diminishes and flaws are hidden. This is how I would suspose console games are made to look.

Ideally, the comparison wouldn't need to be done because visuals are a subjective issue but in terms of SW I agree we need to use direct tech. I am just making the point that to an average person under average conditions, I don't think the difference is going to be very big.

ActicEdge

Their impression only becomes a problem when we get threads like this, or threads declaring a clearly lower end game is better looking than anything PC can offer. This is why we compare raw material, to cut through impressions and perform real objective comparisons.

There wouldn't be a need to do it so often if PC's graphical edge wasn't constantly under attack, even in 2010; when common sense alone should state PC hardware is more powerful.

One big thing I notice from console versions is the bland textures that lack some of the color and detail.

Some people seem to forget that even if a texture file is the same resolution they could have drastic differences in size depending on the variations in that texture.

And that will use much more ram. So for consoles they tone it down and add a heavy contrast filter to hide the imperfections.

Hakkai007

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

That's pretty much the idea I was making, as distance increases the ability to see fine detail diminishes and flaws are hidden. This is how I would suspose console games are made to look.

Ideally, the comparison wouldn't need to be done because visuals are a subjective issue but in terms of SW I agree we need to use direct tech. I am just making the point that to an average person under average conditions, I don't think the difference is going to be very big.

AnnoyedDragon

Their impression only becomes a problem when we get threads like this, or threads declaring a clearly lower end game is better looking than anything PC can offer. This is why we compare raw material, to cut through impressions and perform real objective comparisons.

There wouldn't be a need to do it so often if PC's graphical edge wasn't constantly under attack, even in 2010; when common sense alone should state PC hardware is more powerful.

Well yeah because this is SW stupidity rules all. We SHOULD all know PC games always have a considerable edge. For me atleast, what I view on PC vs Consoles doesn't pose a huge visual gaps though the raw data obviously says otherwise.

Nope. The block compression formats used by graphics hardware has a fixed compression ratio, and the size doesn't depend on the actual color data (unlike image compression formats like JPEG or PNG). It's 1/8th for DXT1, and 1/4th for DXT3 and DXT5. PC games use the same formats for color maps, unless they use D3D11 in which case they have access to two newer block compression formats.

Teufelhuhn

I've noticed differences in size of RAM usage.

Maybe I used a bad comparison. Games using the same exact resolution textures will look worse on the 360 even when playing at 1280x720 on the PC.

It's like someone smeared Vaselineall over it. So I don't mean the file size as you view in from the disc but size in how much ram each texture would take.

Well yeah because this is SW stupidity rules all. We SHOULD all know PC games always have a considerable edge. For me atleast, what I view on PC vs Consoles doesn't pose a huge visual gaps though the raw data obviously says otherwise.

ActicEdge

It's hypocrisy.

I remember back in last gen console gamers said resolution didn't make much of a difference and that games look similar on PC.

Then this gen comes along with 720P res and suddenly they made a big difference of resolution again and laugh at the Wii for low resolution.

They then say that the higher resolutions of the PC don't matter and the whole cycle will continue when next gen rolls along and consoles display games at higher resolutions.

Also some games do use png format for textures.

Torchlight being one of them.

And the detailed textures of the same res take up many times more ram when in game.

It's one of the easier games to mod for.

I hate the new .arc file standard I see with a lot of games....makes it hard to extract.

I am still trying to find a way to access the Lost Planet 2 files.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] [QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Maybe I read it wrong but wasn't the argument the games look a good bit better but not leaps and bounds? Look as in, what he viewed from his console (normal condition for a console) vs what he viewed on his PC (same bit, can't remember if his PC was hooked up to his TV though so forgive me)? I mean to me, comparing raw objective data only does so much because a console is not going to be viewed like that so why compare it in a way that highlights its weakness and not where it is suspose to perform?

It may be that the games all underperform in head to head tech but we aren't honestly ever going to be viewing head to head. When someone says, that they don't see a bug difference in viewing their TV and their PC, I don't really think head to head does well to prove them wrong. I also agree, head to head is objective but objective isn't always the whole story.

Makari

As I said, you cannot use what different people claim to be seeing when playing on a TV. Arguably a console gamer is always going to claim the game looks better than any raw material provided, they are staring at an upscalled image at a distance.

How then can a comparison be performed? Especially in threads like this, when such a comparison is essentially being demanded.

Regardless of what people think they are seeing, raw footage/images show what they are actually looking at.

That's pretty much the idea I was making, as distance increases the ability to see fine detail diminishes and flaws are hidden. This is how I would suspose console games are made to look.

Ideally, the comparison wouldn't need to be done because visuals are a subjective issue but in terms of SW I agree we need to use direct tech. I am just making the point that to an average person under average conditions, I don't think the difference is going to be very big.

[QUOTE="tubbyc"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Yet another thread where people question PC's graphics, then complain when PC gamers actually demonstrate they are wrong.

ktseymour

Nobody here is questioning that PC graphics are clearly superior to consoles' graphics. The topic title is quite vague and it's really a subjective thing. I take it as meaning for the most part, PC games are not vastly better looking than the HD console games, as in what we would normally consider a whole generation ahead or something like that. I think he makes a valid point because some PC enthusiasts act as if just about every PC game totally destroys console games in graphics and makes them look totally crap, which really isn't true. To be honest, it's taking graphics whoring to a ridiculous level. Yes some PS3/360 fanboys can be like that too, in a different way.

Man you made me laugh with this one. I could not tell you how many times I see this response on these and other forums these days. In the way people Interpret what the topic Is, and always using terms like vague and mis-worded. How In the heck can " I'm sorry for the most part, PC games don't look that much better than consoles" be vague?

Vague would be something like: some PC games look better than some console games.

What?:?

Don't look "that much better" is open to interpretation, as in what exactly is meant by "that much better". I gave my interpretation. "Some PC games look better than some console games" is an obvious statement of fact. It wouldn't have any point to it, sure, but it's not vague at all.

Oh, Crysis demo, that explains it, yeah, will patches on the full version it ran better.

Oh, Crysis demo, that explains it, yeah, will patches on the full version it ran better.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Oh, Crysis demo, that explains it, yeah, will patches on the full version it ran better.

vistamanV5

[QUOTE="ktseymour"]

[QUOTE="tubbyc"]

Nobody here is questioning that PC graphics are clearly superior to consoles' graphics. The topic title is quite vague and it's really a subjective thing. I take it as meaning for the most part, PC games are not vastly better looking than the HD console games, as in what we would normally consider a whole generation ahead or something like that. I think he makes a valid point because some PC enthusiasts act as if just about every PC game totally destroys console games in graphics and makes them look totally crap, which really isn't true. To be honest, it's taking graphics whoring to a ridiculous level. Yes some PS3/360 fanboys can be like that too, in a different way.

tubbyc

Man you made me laugh with this one. I could not tell you how many times I see this response on these and other forums these days. In the way people Interpret what the topic Is, and always using terms like vague and mis-worded. How In the heck can " I'm sorry for the most part, PC games don't look that much better than consoles" be vague?

Vague would be something like: some PC games look better than some console games.

What?:?

Don't look "that much better" is open to interpretation, as in what exactly is meant by "that much better". I gave my interpretation. "Some PC games look better than some console games" is an obvious statement of fact. It wouldn't have any point to it, sure, but it's not vague at all.

You know...your answer was kinda vague :)