When fanboys bend basic math to their agenda...
Well, write me the right specs then. As i sad before, those specs are from this forum. And i think it is somewhere from here :
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676989
When fanboys bend basic math to their agenda...
Well, write me the right specs then. As i sad before, those specs are from this forum. And i think it is somewhere from here :
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676989
Yeah, because we all spent considerable time on both versions and should have been able to tell the differences.
Your Ps4 can do Spreadsheets? Talking about moving goalposts.
Perfect.Bishoptl is GAFs Nemesis-system.
And IMO the game looks fantastic on all platforms. I cant see anything that looks like "shit".Huh? Sorry, but isn't based on anything and very likely BS. And the AA solution on the Ps4 looks like shit imo. And the fact is that the XB/Ps4 are locked to that framerate, and nothing the end user can do about that.
So an extra £50 with the OS
Less the convenience of a console
Some PC gamers just need to accept a LOT of people prefer ease of a console over a PC
I say this as a devout PC player who rants at mates who plays FPS's with a joypad!
Based on what?Since there's no framedrops on either, it's highly likely that the bone runs it at 35-45 fps unlocked and the PS4 runs it at 45-60fps (that part is a guess though).
Anybody who really wants to compare this thing fairly, should ask the devs to remove the motion blur and AA on the PS4 version and run it through a frametest unlocked, then compare it to different pc configs. I'm sure the ps4 version would easily run at 60+ fps too at 1080p.
Because people buy console just to play. & in the whole package you have a bluyray player. It's called 'deal'. It cost at the end to have it on pc. It's that tough to understand the ps4 without bluray would cost less?
Have you looked at the screenshots in this thread? How noticeable does it look to you?
High quality motion blur is indeed a demanding effect. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't? It's one of my favorite effects too - ie it's subjective.Getting a big chuckle at people suggesting Motion Blur is that big of a hit. Yeah, they totally sacrificed 45-60 FPS for motion blur and FXAA, two of the worst effects out there (and ones with very little performance impact). Motion blur is more often used to HIDE performance issues since it can make low frame rates look smoother.
Most mid-range hardware can run it at 60fps, though. This is the game maxed out (sans ultra textures) at 1080p. I consider a 670 a lower mid-end card - lower shadow quality/vegetation distance from ultra to high and you will probably get a very consistent 60fps on a 2GB 2 year old card.
High quality motion blur is indeed a demanding effect. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't? It's one of my favorite effects too - ie it's subjective.
High quality motion blur is indeed a demanding effect. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't? It's one of my favorite effects too - ie it's subjective.
In quotes (I took a guess at it) based on the disparity between the hardware and the performance of prior titles like BF4 and Tomb Raider. As I said we can never know for sure (unless the last paragraph in my post is adhered to), but on the flipside saying that the PC version runs at 60fps with no way of knowing how the console version runs unlocked is not a fair comparison either.Huh? Sorry, but the bolded isn't based on anything and very likely BS. And the AA solution on the Ps4 looks like shit imo. And the fact is that the XB/Ps4 are locked to that framerate, and nothing the end user can do about that.
Answered above..Based on what?
I'm sure it can as it would be missing motion blur and AA which the console versions do have. A higher framerate with these bits missing would be natural, it's how hardware works. A good comparison against the PC would include motion blur and the same aa method on PC as they do draw gpu and cpu resources.If it would have, they would not have locked it at 30 FPS. As it is now, regardless of what the PS4 could have done, it's stuck at 30 FPS, and even a cheap mid-range GPU can do that.
It still looks and plays very well on Xbox One, so I don't care.
Jesus... as a PC gamer, sometimes I feel there are few who understand that consoles are supposed to be accessible, cheap, bang for your buck hardware, that at some point will be $300. They're not designed for the performance enthusiast consumer, and the results are great for what they are (well mostly the ps4).
The point of PC gaming is scalable performance according to your budget, it's obvious you can outperform consoles if you build or upgrade to new hardware releases, what is the point of bragging about 780ti benchmarks? The discussion will get nowhere and only makes the poster look ridiculous.
Of course, PS4 will always outperform the Xbox One in graphics, etc. Do we really need to hear about it for the umpteenth time? We get it.
Exactly. And PC gamers (or should I say, PC elitists) wonder why console gamers despise them.
Of course, PC gaming will always outperform consoles in graphics, etc. Do we really need to hear about it for the umpteenth time? We get it.
In quotes (I took a guess at it) based on the disparity between the hardware and the performance of prior titles like BF4 and Tomb Raider. As I said we can never know for sure (unless the last paragraph in my post is adhered to), but on the flipside saying that the PC version runs at 60fps with no way of knowing how the console version runs unlocked is not a fair comparison either.
It's a platform that is part of the article, why shouldn't it be discussed, people have no issue saying ''PS4 wins again" when that will probably happen in every comparison, yet somehow no one bats an eye about that.
Math, how does it work. Part 2 - confusion.
So an extra £50 with the OS
Less the convenience of a console
Some PC gamers just need to accept a LOT of people prefer ease of a console over a PC
I say this as a devout PC player who rants at mates who plays FPS's with a joypad!
Count me in as someone who finds motion blur (object motion blur specifically) to be a very welcome feature and is disappointed that it currently doesn't function on the PC version. What a bizarre oversight...High quality motion blur is indeed a demanding effect. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't? It's one of my favorite effects too - ie it's subjective.
I wish people would stop posting this image. The jpg compression is laughably bad - so bad that there is simply no way to discern any texture detail at all.There's no IQ difference between the PS4-PC versions
I think the problem with thr AA solution is that it basically nullifies the resolution boost the ps4 has over the xbox one version, due to it not beinga very crisp AA method.
I wish people would stop posting this image. The jpg compression is laughably bad - so bad that there is simply no way to discern any texture detail at all.
It's dumb. It's really, really, really dumb. Someone needs to make a better comparison, this time without the awful jpg compression.
It's platform that is part of the article, why shouldn't it be discussed, people have no issue saying ''PS4 wins again" when that will probably happen in every comparison, yet somehow no one bats an eye about that.
Which is why I find it ridiculous that PC is included in faceoffs against consoles, it makes no sense because I can go down town and buy the spiffiest pc parts and run multiplats better for the entire generation or I can leave my pc as is and just post on gaf and do regular pc stuff. My pc in it's current state barely runs sf4 above 60fps at 720p, there's no way I'm running mordor at all. This just shows that "PC" is not a definitive thing in terms of spec, so you can't say "PC" runs this better than PS4, it all depends on which pc you have.Exactly. And PC gamers (or should I say, PC elitists) wonder why console gamers despise them.
Of course, PC gaming will always outperform consoles in graphics, etc. Do we really need to hear about it for the umpteenth time? We get it.
No, I can see the quantization artifacts very clearly. There's very good reason why, for example, the High-Res Screenshot Thread has a rule banning jpgs with visible artifacts from being posted. It obscures too much detail and turns the image into an artifact-ridden mess, which is exactly what I'm seeing in that image.Maybe because there is no difference between the texture detail?
The AA on consoles looks like basic FXAA. Its performance impact is roughly zero.Huh? Sorry, but the bolded isn't based on anything and very likely BS. And the AA solution on the Ps4 looks like shit imo.
It has nothing to do with "optimizing the game at 30". Such a thing isn't even possible.It's weird to me how low on that list you can go to get 30FPS, but how high you need to get to get 60.
It just seems like if you can grab the 750ti, a $130~ GPU, and play it just fine at 30FPS but need a $500-$600 card to get above 60. They did such a good job optimizing the game at 30, seems like they didn't even bother going for 60 on the PC
Which is why I find it ridiculous that PC is included in faceoffs against consoles
I wish we would have the option to turn off v-sync on ps4...
People have already said that you can get win licenses for like 20.
And if anybody told me he prefers ease of consoles over a PC i'm perfectly fine with that.
The reason i said something was because i'm tired of people acting like these consoles are amazing value and you need to pay 5 trizillions for a pc.
because they are? these consoles will be running games 7 years from now, bought for 400 bucks last year. why? locked hardware. devs are going to optimise for it.
give me one 400-dollar pc from 2013 that will run 2020 games at 30 fps minimum. you won't be able to.
"oh no but you have to pay for online, etc." is gonna be the excuse, no doubt.
No, I can see the quantization artifacts very clearly. There's very good reason why, for example, the High-Res Screenshot Thread has a rule banning jpgs with visible artifacts from being posted. It obscures too much detail and turns the image into an artifact-ridden mess, which is exactly what I'm seeing in that image.
because they are? these consoles will be running games 7 years from now, bought for 400 bucks last year. why? locked hardware. devs are going to optimise for it.
give me one 400-dollar pc from 2013 that will run 2020 games at 30 fps minimum. you won't be able to.
"oh no but you have to pay for online, etc." is gonna be the excuse, no doubt.
Again, people chose to ignore things like productivity and price advantages of PC gaming, I chose to ignore non-gaming fluff. I swear, some people don't even hide their bias or agenda anymore, despite making themselves look like tools.
It's platform that is part of the article, why shouldn't it be discussed, people have no issue saying ''PS4 wins again" when that will probably happen in every comparison, yet somehow no one bats an eye about that.
Then what are you doing here in a tech-thread?It still looks and plays very well on Xbox One, so I don't care.
People enjoying a console doesn't diminish your PC enjoyment... or shouldn't. And vice-versa. You just come off as insecure and defensive. These threads always turn into a budget PC buildathon and it's sad to see we can't just discuss the technical merits of the game on what we want to play it on.
Yea you will at the right settings but ok. A 680 is going to have every advantage over a ps4 in 7 years, as it does now. Its still going to out perform it. There is no console magic. A lot of ps4 gamers getting super defensive here, and making shit up.