-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shadow of Mordor DF Face-Off
- Thread starter neogaffer1
- Start date
The problem with the image aren't really so much the artifacts (though they are distracting), it's that it's kind of silly to select a comparison where there are very little differences in order to illustrate differences.
I mean, the differences between the versions are rather glaringly obvious if you look in the right places:
LOD
Textures & Shadow Resolution
Vegetation
LapinAgile
Member
Seeing how the game performs on their console I would wager. And what brings you here? Trying to scare off the rubber-neckers? If it had poor performance on xbox 1 I am sure they would care.
EmptySpace
Banned
so you're comparing the 680 gpu (read: a single component of a pc) which sold for 400 last year vs a whole console?
sure, whatever you say.
The Shogun
Banned
Why is there a huge console vs PC war going on in here.
PC will pretty much always be able to outperform consoles. And thats fine. Consoles are designed to be easy entry machines that the user can just stick a disc in and go. This has both its benefits and limitations. PCs require a little more effort by the consumer but the payoffs can be higher resolutions, framerates, etc.
Both are awesome but different experiences.
PC will pretty much always be able to outperform consoles. And thats fine. Consoles are designed to be easy entry machines that the user can just stick a disc in and go. This has both its benefits and limitations. PCs require a little more effort by the consumer but the payoffs can be higher resolutions, framerates, etc.
Both are awesome but different experiences.
The 680 will get no driver updates 7 years from now but it will still be playing games with better settings than the PS4 and XB1. Optimization is NOT a magical cure-all that allows an inferior machine to equal or surpass far superior hardware.
Welp, there it is.The problem with the image aren't really so much the artifacts (though they are distracting), it's that it's kind of silly to select a comparison where there are very little differences in order to illustrate differences.
I mean, the differences between the versions are rather glaringly obvious if you look in the right places:
LOD
Textures & Shadow Resolution
Vegetation
It should also be noted that the difference between PC Ultra & High textures is miniscule, a difference small enough that it can be assumed the only difference between High and Ultra textures is purely compression and not much else.
That's kinda impossible due to people having installed a crap ton of unnecessary crap on their PCs even those that should know better. Or not updating due to Evil Microsoft. Or the fact that PC components can actually vary greatly in performance(will never be fixed?). And then we have people that know their shit and can "optimise" their own environment.
If I ever see another performance booster on a PC I'll seriously ram my head through the wall. Oh and screw people with "dual antivirus", "external USB 2" gaming HDD. It's not age or time that is killing PC gaming for me. It's idiot friends in their 30-40s that refuse to listen or Google simple solutions because of "reasons" and Cthulhu.
But it's true. You don't need consoles at all. Same is true if you turn it around, you don't need PCs at all. It's just the other side of the coin. Perhaps another point of view would be better to liken it to. I know for one that I think the Vita is better. Better for me at least. Add to the fact that I can play all PS4 gamed as well on it makes it way more valuable to me than my Pc.
Should clarify, for gaming. Only talking about games.
StarBlazers1
Member
So all three are good. Call me when it effects the gameplay itself. BTW, bought the PC version.
killatopak
Gold Member
No drivers means lots of errors and bugs that appear. That would mean lots of tinkering, patching and other stuff to do. I don't think console users want to bother with that and that's okay. That's the nature of PC and Consoles.
I also think you're forgetting about exclusives because let's be honest. Most of the time only on exclusive games do you see the games get optimized to the best of its abilities on consoles. Otherwise the PC would pretty much win every time. Can you say that a PC built on 2006 can run games that look like God of War 3 and Halo 4?
Let's not downplay optimizations here because it's the only thing the consoles can do better than any PC.
thelastword
Banned
There should be faceoffs, XBONE vs PS4. PS3/360 vs Wii U. PC AMD 290 vs Titan.
PC 780ti vs AMD 280 etc..
To be fair I don't even think the PC versions needs to be compared against each other, that's what guru 3d and all these other hardware sites and forums are for. I could do my own benchmark on my pc easily and compare that to other pc specs on various forums.
Maybe it does, but people don't come to a comparison thread to know if you have a capable pc that it will run a multiplat better than consoles, providing that you have the hardware to do so..
iamvin22
Industry Verified
i think its 900p up scaled to 1080 right?!?
I don't really care about exclusives because 1. I won't be playing them and 2. there's no comparison to be made because, obviously, they're exclusives. Nonetheless, I WOULD say a 2006 PC could play games that look like GoW 3 and Halo 4 at similar quality settings - though GoW 3 in particular would be a difficult one due to the use of the Cell processor (which there is no equivalent for on any PC).
At any rate, the GTX 680 is already two years old and anyone holding onto such a card 7 years later is asking for trouble in the first place. I would say a 4-5 year upgrade cycle is hardly unreasonable. Hell, even a 2-year upgrade cycle is well within the realm of reason, for unless you're treading the poverty line or are really bad with your spending, you can easily save up $1 a day to buy a nice upgrade down the line.
It's bizarre to me that people keep acting like PCs having an upgrade cycle is a complete deal-breaker considering just how cheap the hobby is compared to almost anything else you can do. Ever try photography or filmmaking? That shit is expensive. PC gaming is peanuts in comparison. Oh yeah, let's not forget about the smartphone upgrade cycle. $700 a year (or more, if you opt for the "subsidized" contract option)! LOADS of people are upgrading their phones religiously and that's far more expensive an endeavor than upgrading a PC.
I mean... have some perspective. Shit's really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things, and if you're scraping by so badly that you can't even save $1 a day, you have bigger priorities that you need to be dealing with.
Exactly. Call me when there's a dedicated PC gaming box that allows me to upgrade my hardware to however I want it in order to play future games (especially in decent settings).
What's your number?
HawksWinStanley
Member
Yeesh those Xbox shots look kind of rough. It's not the most graphically impressive game anyway but those screens don't do it any favors.
Turin Turambar
Member
So, 900p.
The native resolution only matters for the image quality of the output.
The Xbox One displays at either 720p or 1080p, depending on the system setting, no matter what the internal rendering resolution is.
Substitue it with any card you want that outperforms a PS4 now, because it's going to outperform it in 7 years.
Uhm..
I come here to see when devs for some reason cock up the PC version.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-lego-the-movie-next-gen-face-off
Man... Increased resolution AND quality in PS4 is plain terrible for Xbox. Massive.
SEGAvangelist
Member
I'm glad the gamma isn't screwed up in the XB1 version. It looks really nice.
The Dear Leader
Banned
But most are, and you can say that a game that runs at 900p/30fps with medium graphics on a console isn't exactly optimized either.
DOWN
Banned
I'm confused as to why you wouldn't be able to do 60fps? Are there games where you can't? I thought you basically always could make it 60fps and thus it was irrelevant in for conversations where framerste is just always up to the individual's hardware or willingness to compromise.
Lol at this thread.
"PC can be stronger than a PS4, so we shouldn't compare it ever again! (And not all PC's can run it in ultra, so PS4 technically wins)"
"Wow PS4 version is better than the Xbone? Let's just keep doing these face-offs because that might change in the future!"
That hypocritical reasoning made sense last gen since 360/PS3 were a lot closer in power, but considering just how stronger the PS4 is, we really shouldn't need these face-offs in the first place no? Now that reasoning is only used by PS4 owners who hate being in 2nd place.
These face-offs are always interesting because it's cool to see what settings are used in the console versions, what features are in what version etc. but it always seems to turn into these fights.
"PC can be stronger than a PS4, so we shouldn't compare it ever again! (And not all PC's can run it in ultra, so PS4 technically wins)"
"Wow PS4 version is better than the Xbone? Let's just keep doing these face-offs because that might change in the future!"
That hypocritical reasoning made sense last gen since 360/PS3 were a lot closer in power, but considering just how stronger the PS4 is, we really shouldn't need these face-offs in the first place no? Now that reasoning is only used by PS4 owners who hate being in 2nd place.
These face-offs are always interesting because it's cool to see what settings are used in the console versions, what features are in what version etc. but it always seems to turn into these fights.
The PC version has no traditional AA options but the way its resolution setting works is that it detects your desktop resolution and then gives you percentage-based alternatives, including 150% and 200%. That's why 6GB VRAM is erroneously recommended for 1080p: because at 200% the game is actually rendering internally at 4k.
DOWN
Banned
Is that a thing? 7 year old cards look as good as PS4 titles?
In 7 years.
Toothless Spoon
Member
I have the PC and PS4 versions - and the only REAL thing that lets the PC down, is no AA options. Super-sampling is an option, and I use it, because I have to - but it's certainly not ideal, especially when you play triple screens. I'm impressed by the PS4 version, looks and plays great - although I thought it was suppose to be 60fps, it plays smooth.
Looking at the XB1 pics makes me sad. I'm fortunate enough to have all consoles and a banging PC at my disposal, but I haven't touched my XB1 since launch really. It's either PC or PS4. Don't get me wrong, the PS4 is good, but not the step up we should have had after 7 years. With the way things are for XB1, I don't know why MS just don't dump it and move to PC.
Looking at the XB1 pics makes me sad. I'm fortunate enough to have all consoles and a banging PC at my disposal, but I haven't touched my XB1 since launch really. It's either PC or PS4. Don't get me wrong, the PS4 is good, but not the step up we should have had after 7 years. With the way things are for XB1, I don't know why MS just don't dump it and move to PC.
killatopak
Gold Member
lol.
Don't say that to me. Personally, I don't have the best PC around but I still do have my gaming laptop so I have no problems towards that.
You mention people changing phones every year but I've also seen PC users do that every time a new GPU gets released. It's just less pronounced and more of a niche really. As much as there are people still rocking the GT 8800, proportionately, there are still people who are using their old phones like my SGS3 since it can still do its job. Whereas people who always want the latest and greatest buy the new GPUs/Smart phones yearly.
I'm just saying that console gaming is something of a convenience that most casual gamers can exchange for instead of playing on PCs where they're usually afraid of having to do some tinkering. Most people think playing on PCs and building one is as complicated as rocket science but in reality it's not really that hard especially now where there are tutorials in the internet. There are people who want to skip the process of changing the settings of stuff in games like AA,AO,Resolution,Tessellation and other stuff in exchange of just putting the disc and playing the game in its best optimized state and they are the ones who chose to play on consoles.
At least you get the satisfaction of knowing their hearts sank the second they realized big mean ol' PC is around.
Well, you should look at Microsoft's long history in their "dedication" towards PC gamers & PC gaming.
zeioIIDX
Member
I was thinking the same exact thing. Except with Red Dead, the Xbox version had more vegetation and seemed to be overall better than the Playstation version. I had the PS3 version
Oh man, fanboy wars are hilarious these days. Keep them coming!
Well yes, that goes without saying too. I just don't like it when people play the magical optimization card, as though that were a proven advantage with huge effects (pretty laughable with sub-30 FPS games becoming en vogue towards the end of the previous generation).
I mean, if you like it just because it's cheaper, because it's more convenient, or whatever, that's fine. You just don't need to listen to or invent lies to justify your purchase, you know?
The problem with the image aren't really so much the artifacts (though they are distracting), it's that it's kind of silly to select a comparison where there are very little differences in order to illustrate differences.
I mean, the differences between the versions are rather glaringly obvious if you look in the right places:
LOD
Textures & Shadow Resolution
Vegetation
Oh I agree, don't get me wrong. There clearly are differences between the version, but JPG artifacts or not, there were basically no differences in the first picture that was posted.
Because plenty of people enjoy their xbox?? I don't want a PS4 and prefer my X1. While the difference is apparent im enjoying my X1 greatly and friends/tag Ive had with it.
Kilau
Gold Member
I dunno, I got called a console fanboy because I suggested a blu-ray drive shouldn't be ignored in a PC.
Like the one I have in my gaming PC...
I would consider it a waste in a PC personally considering i already have two bluray playing devices in my house.
This is totally OT, but really, why would a gaming PC need a blu-ray drive? I just built one, and it hasn't got any optical disc drive at all.
The Dear Leader
Banned
It has no gaming application on PC, so why shouldn't it be ignored? It's an unnecessary cost that adds nothing and takes nothing away from the PC gaming experience.
killatopak
Gold Member
I think if you want to preserve HDD space then it's kindy ideal to use blu-ray cds. On consoles, you don't need a blu-ray drive too because you can also download games ala Steam. It is a convenience though especially if you have slow internet or data caps. This is especially true now that games are becoming bigger in size. Just a few years ago, I would call you crazy if you said a game takes 50gb of space.
Kilau
Gold Member
It's a waste if you already have other players I suppose.
I don't mean to say a gaming PC needs a blu-ray drive, i'm not aware of any PC games coming on blu-rays, are there?
It was just a response to the crazy PC vs. console comparisons that always happen.
Also, I get better image quality from blu-rays on my PC than PS4/PS3.
I can think of only one reason why you'd take offense to that post, and you probably shouldn't be so blatant about it
The joy of not living in the US.
If people want to have their fanboy wars then fine, but they shouldn't act innocent because it's pretty damn obvious what they're doing.