Why the best looking PC games don't look that great?

Arma 3 for example, insane draw distance but everything else looks so poor. Of-course on meticulously taken screen-shots it looks great but when you actually see it in motion it looks average at best. Just look at that foliage, it don't even move! So why herms complain so much about Witcher 3 when it looks a thousand times better while defending mediocre looking games like Arma 3 where the maps look as lifeless as it gets?

_

Do I need to drag up those screenshots from the Order showing low res textures? In regards to ARMA 3, the game is rendered in real time, the entire map is available to explore from one side to the other with no sections that have to be loaded in A La GTA. You can't say that games on consoles.

why cant you find a better pc game?

Compressed youtube clip.

Running on a GTX 760 at 60fps so most likely at medium settings.

Yep, looks like we have ourselves a troll.

Remember that the OP called this the gfx king:

The best looking PC games still look way better than anything else on any other gaming platform so who cares? Graphics aren't exactly an area the consoles compete favorably against the PC, so why bother bringing it up?

Yep, W3 looks thousand times better. Can you see this awesome background textures of a brick wall.

Wow

Much next gen

Very GOTY

So Graphical King

Much PS2 level

Wow

This was a poorly thought out thread.

Is that Bloodborne? I see FROM Software hasn't upgraded their terrible character models.

Not that they look amazing, but that's a very selective screenshot intentionally taken at a poor angle. Character models are in Bloodborne are the best they've ever been in a Souls game, which... isn't saying much, but that screenshot is unfair.

@princeofshapeir Thanks for the info. I gotta get around playing that game. Too bad the platform it's on has literally only two games that interest me.

@jg4xchamp: lol no they really don't and Arma 3 looks like shit .

Seems like people are just getting super lazy with the threads. This is probably the 4th or 5th ultra shitpost thread aimed at PC gaming I've seen in as many days. Are you guys just bored from no games or what?

get dem eyes looked at man.

But you sure can tell the difference between the PS4 and X1 in multiplat games and to add to that, we have another one that doesn't understand scale.

scale is the one thing im actually waiting to see improved on consoles. nobody seems to want to make that next leap foward

Game over pc gaming is dead. RIP.

Yet another poor attempt to justify the purchase of low end LapTop.

@clyde46: Except I do understand scale, one reason why I find "TW3" to look amazing. I'm also not on here raving about PS4 vs X1 differences. Yes the PS4 versions usually look slightly better but it only gets blown out of proportion just because you are comparing two prebuilt boxes that came out at the same time.

Cows had to listen to lemmings gloat about superior multiplats for the majority of last gen. So lemmings are going to have to deal with it this gen. The sad thing is MS had the bank to take a larger loss on the console and make a superior machine and they failed to do that.

@lawlessx: The games are bigger and look better then last gen, what else do you want?

The best visuals can only be found on PS4 atm, TW3 on PC is up there but that's a lot more expensive. At E3 2015, Horizon, UC4, GOW4 ,GT7 and QD's new game would set new benchmarks in graphics once again and people would pay even less attention to PC gaming.

I suspect this video is faked somewhat.Its running on a 760 which doesnt have a prayer of maxing this games graphics at 60fps even at the 2k view distance that is shown in the video. Terrain detail on ULTRA alone would bring that GPU to <20fps. Thats an old version of the game too, there have been improvements to a lot of game assets including sound, optics, weapon handling since this video was made.

okay than why the **** was Conan O'Brien playing Witcher 3 on a PC?

why the hell were they showing PC gameplay in trailers for witcher 3?

why the hell did e3 show footage from PC

why the hell did battlefield do all this crap too and why did they fly people out to test the games on PC and not show any footage from ps4/xb1

if ps4 visuals are so good why did devs try to hide all this crap for as long as they could if its soooo friggin good gpu king tell me tell me why

Coz it's easier to demo on PC since it's made first on PCs. Also I'm not talking about multiplatforms, the exclusives on PS4 are still beyond what the multiplats could offer.

its easier for these people to set up a 3000 dollar gaming rig to conans tv then hand him marketing copy for ps4/xb1?

explain how the hell that would be easier to set all that up then just giving him one of those marketing disks?

they didn't want ppl to see a weaker version on tv an youtube an thats a fact u don't even know what ur talking about DEVS hate the visuals on the ps4/xb1 they make there games look bad an thats why they set up that uber machine to make it look better

They look good. All multiplatform games look best on PC. PC exclusives don't look as good as console exclusives though, in general. Reason is because PC exclusives don't get the art budget that Naughty Dog for instance gets. A Naughty Dog game costs as much as your average AAA multiplat to develop. Star Citizen is the only PC centric title since Crysis to really push rendering on these new GPU's. Probably as undoable on 8th gen consoles as what Crysis 1 was on the 7th gen consoles.

And I can tell you one thing, if Star Citizen pulls off this high fidelity space game and actually creates a game that is fun to play, I will be stoked to say the least. Those images of the spaceship hovering over a planet and you can see the mountains and clouds rendered in 3D. That blows my mind. If I get to land on those planets in real time it's like the game I always dreamed of. No Mans Sky does that but not to the fidelity of Star Citizen.

That's completely false. PC games don't feature linear games in a closed space that hold your hand. This is why you don't see games like Uncharted or The Order 1886. These games would flop. See what Uncharted looks like now that they trying open-world?

Divinity looks better than Uncharted 4. Crysis 3 still shits on anything consoles have to offer. So does ARMA III. Not even close.

consistency. Low resolution textures or output doesn't necessarily make a game look bad. All that matters is the overall image the player sees and at times many of the high end pc stuff will have things that look out of place--highly detailed stuff sitting right next to something not.

Too bad everything looks like garbage in Uncharted 4. Sony exclusives are good at character models and facial animations. Everything else sucks.

No this is where Uncharted really shines. It might not have the most detail based on what we've seen, but what is on screen is very well balanced.

@Heirren So because everything looks low-res it somewhat makes it shine? This game will be released in 2016 and will still get shat on by PC games released 3 years prior. That's pathetic.

They're complaining about the downgrade, not the overall quality.

Everything doesn't look low res. It looks like Uncharted--like a somewhat believable world. Going back further, Metal Gear Solid on the psx is still a good looking game as it strikes a good balance of detail around all the objects within the world. Everything looks like it belongs. In many high end pc games there are moments where everything is fine but then some "wtf?" moments occur. For example, back when Crysis was mind boggling you could be outdoors and then you walk into a shack and all of a sudden you feel like you might be playing morrowind and the chairs and appliances are all odd sizes with such varying texture detail.

Happens in every game. Play Uncharted 3. Prologue looks amazing. Citiy is vibrant and really looks like somewhere in South America. Then you enter the museum, stare at the wall and notice the blurry bricks it is made of. Every game suffers from that. Literally every game.

I didn't say Uncharted was perfect....I've played through Uncharted 3 and I don't remember blurry walls in the museum. Not saying they weren't there. The view is generally somewhat restricting in Uncharted.

@Juub1990 said:

@bobrossperm said:

They look good. All multiplatform games look best on PC. PC exclusives don't look as good as console exclusives though, in general. Reason is because PC exclusives don't get the art budget that Naughty Dog for instance gets. A Naughty Dog game costs as much as your average AAA multiplat to develop. Star Citizen is the only PC centric title since Crysis to really push rendering on these new GPU's. Probably as undoable on 8th gen consoles as what Crysis 1 was on the 7th gen consoles.

And I can tell you one thing, if Star Citizen pulls off this high fidelity space game and actually creates a game that is fun to play, I will be stoked to say the least. Those images of the spaceship hovering over a planet and you can see the mountains and clouds rendered in 3D. That blows my mind. If I get to land on those planets in real time it's like the game I always dreamed of. No Mans Sky does that but not to the fidelity of Star Citizen.

That's completely false. PC games don't feature linear games in a closed space that hold your hand. This is why you don't see games like Uncharted or The Order 1886. These games would flop. See what Uncharted looks like now that they trying open-world?

Divinity looks better than Uncharted 4. Crysis 3 still shits on anything consoles have to offer. So does ARMA III. Not even close.

For one, lumping Uncharted 4 in with The Order is a little harsh. The worst Uncharted game was a damn sight better than The Order 1886. And whatever you say, Uncharted 4 might have some rough graphics in places, but I can wager it looks stunning on release. I'm sure you'll be there to post your shit shots of the game, by all means be that guy, but it will be a looker. Fact.

And lol Divinity. Uncharted 4 will be both a better looking and better game period than Divinity. Yet another fact :)

And which console exclusives are so amazing TC? The Order and Driveclub, i'll give you.

What else?

Go back as far as you want. Doesn't even have to be console only. Pacman holds up. Mario 64 holds up. Street Fighter 2 holds up. Many old games are simply better designed artistically than modern, high end pc games.

You really do chat some shit.

Care to explain why? Are you suggesting no games of the past are well designed visual works within their working parameters? Virtua Racing in the arcade is still a visual feast.

In the graphics department he's chatting shit obviously, but the games he's mentioned do hold up very well today. I might add Super Metroid which still is to this day a superior game to any game ever released on PC or console. Looks excellent today too since 16 bit 2D game visuals aged better than PS1 and PS2 games.

Agreed, even a last gen game like Last Of Us Remastered looks better than pretty much any pc exclusive. Besides the point, for that $1000 pc gamers will drop on those Titan powered CPU's, what exactly do they get? Sharper console ports 99% of the public would not notice or care about.

Aside from maybe, Total War and Star Citizen (which may be downgraded or just outright bad), not worth the effort.

Better hardware = better graphics. I fail to understand why people try to discuss this.

It's like saying a car with more horsepower moves slower than a car with less horsepower.

yes..because over the last 35 years...ONLY 2 games are "amazing"..LOL!!! that is biggest fanboy clown reply ive seen..LOL!!! ..so out of the last 35 years only Medal of Honor Allied Assault Spearhead and UT are the only 2 PC games that are amazing..see how that works..see how dumb that sounds?