Chobel
Member
Are you sure? You may need another opinion to validate your own perspective.
Why are you questioning him? Obviously he doesn't have 70'' TV.
Are you sure? You may need another opinion to validate your own perspective.
Why are you questioning him? Obviously he doesn't have 70'' TV.
He's obviously sat at a normal viewing distance from his screen and just enjoying the experience. How dare he!
I demand you stand about half a foot from the screen and look at every pixel
OG Xbox was a beast! definitely killed the PS2, not just in raw power with a ratio of 6.2GF vs 21.6GF, but architecturally with a GPU featuring programmable shaders as we still use today. A sound chip that could produce 5.1 discreet channels in real-time without touching the CPU, featured 4 controller ports, a ubiquitous HDD, shit, if there were ever an example of a more advanced machine a mere year later, the prime example is the OG Xbox.
Where it mattered, games, the PS2 was the best console that generation, but it really had no competition after the Dreamcast failed, where else would all 3rd party devs flock to? It's like knocking all players out in Monopoly and getting all the property, anyone coming into the game after that is toast.
What setting is making the console versions look like there's no shadow? Shadows? AO? Foliage distance?
But Mark Cerny told us!
Man is disappointing consoles are getting performance this poor, is almost like if both MS & Sony went into this gen not really wanting to
I can turn the setting on and get mostly 60fps with occasional dips(usually in towns/villages) with a GTX970. If you're ok with 30fps, there's no reason you couldn't turn this on comfortably(along with Hairworks!).Foliage distance also affects shadow ranges.
That's your ultra setting on foliage range that MURDERS your hardware. So don't think about it if you don't have a 980 or above.
TW3 is clearly a PC game first and foremost, and designed and optimised for that platform over consoles.
Foliage distance also affects shadow ranges.
That's your ultra setting on foliage range that MURDERS your hardware. So don't think about it if you don't have a 980 or above.
I don't think that is true, the game runs as well as the hardware allows it. To me it seems hardware limitations are to blame and not CDPR's skills.
Far Cry 4 isn't anywhere near as massive in scope as The Witcher 3.
Because the PC version would have had to have been a totally different build and would be enormously impractical, particularly for a game of this size. Development of this game was already apparently very straining on the team even with the time and resources given to it. Doing a PC build that had entirely different assets and lighting systems and everything would be absolutely insane, not to mention necessitating a very high minimum spec requirement.If what CDPR said about the original reveal bring what they were developing is true makes you wonder why they didn't just tone back the assets for console release and let the PC version shine as truly superior (if you have the hardware). I mean why the hell not?
I'm sure they could have done a lot more with the PS4 version if they cut the resolution to XB1 levels, but otherwise, the resolution gap will take up most all of the difference in power between consoles. No conspiracy necessary.I wonder if the marketing deal with Xbox could have stipulated some sort of features parity across all versions such that no asset, lighting, draw distance etc would be improved on PS4 and no substantial features or asset changes would be present in PC. At the very least they might have insisted that the XB1 be lead development platform thereby limiting substantially CDPR with 32mb ESRAM + slower main system memory. It would make sense that they had to cut back in asset quality if their hands were tied by such a small pool of ram for frame buffers.
Im pretty sure they even mentioned the engine is build to scale given the hardware its
running on.
Did you feel the same way about PS2 when the likes of Unreal Tournament and Max Payne were running at an average sub-20fps?
TW3 is clearly a PC game first and foremost, and designed and optimised for that platform over consoles. Games like Far Cry 4 show how stunning and smooth open world games can look on PS4/XBO when consoles are considered further in the design choices. TW3 feels really clunky and un-optimised on PS4 though, and I couldn't get on with it.
It does look great.
It's just the usual people cherry-picking screenshots that fit their agenda.
Yeah, it's pretty good. Not quite UE4 level (which I currently consider the gold standard in temporal single-sample-per-frame postprocessing AA), but far better than what some developers try to sell as temporal AA.One thing I'm surprised isn't getting discussed much is how good the AA method CDPR used is.
people posting shitty pics and saying this is how the game looks on console A are sad, you can make almost any game look bad in pics, especially open world games.
Yes, a phenomenon of this:
I remember the last time PC said FUCK IT and shoved that old lady out of the way. We got games like Doom 3 (amazing lighting and normal maps) and Crysis (made everyone's rig cry like a bitch)
This really nails how I feel this generation is playing out. I feel the early DDR5 talk and the prevalence of remasters lulled people into a certain credulity when it comes to performance.Lots of unrealistic expectations going around it seems.
The consoles are designed to be mass market devices with a price point that only allows for so much power.
Increasing resolution on TVs alone is eating up a lot of that power gen to gen - consider the specs required to render a decent imagine in 720p/30fps vs the jump in specs required merely to go to 1080p/30fps with same assets.
People seem to expect them to match visuals a high end PC can deliver which is madness. Consoles have been struggling to support bigger PC centric titles since PS2/Xbox generation. Heck last gen 60fps for a lot of PC style games like CoD4 required sub 720p and the better looking 720p games were 30fps.
The Witcher 3 looks fine on consoles relative to their power. If you want more for that kind of open world and detail you wahnt a PC.
I'll admit XB1 looks little tougher due to 900p if viewed upscaled on decent 1080p TV but it's the weakest of the three options so it's harfly s surprise.
I think expectations for graphical increase combined with 1080p resolution are unrealistic in some cases. People need to be realistic about what's possible and what isn't.
The game will likely get further polish but it's unlikely to look much better vs having frame rate and stability improved IMO.
Holy hypocrite mother of god!
This is a keeper.
And it's funny because that's all you ever do in Wii U games threads.
Doom 3 ran on Xbox and has always been designed with this console in mind.
Consoles as common denonimator does not prevent devs to push high-end PCs to their limit.
Well the doom 3 port was more of an after thought in a lot of ways (JC's comments about thinking it would be a good box for a port), it has entirely different level layout in some sections and is cut into smaller sections so that it can even load at all. It is more akin to how doom was ported to the SNES rather than how Rage was handled.
I can turn the setting on and get mostly 60fps with occasional dips(usually in towns/villages) with a GTX970. If you're ok with 30fps, there's no reason you couldn't turn this on comfortably(along with Hairworks!).
Ummm no. I don't want to get this off topic, but I always try to find the best looking pics of wiiu games when I discuss graphics. The games are mainly x and bayo 2, which have a very difficult time looking good in direct feed pics.
I'm pretty impressed with how the consoles handle PC ports this gem. I think Witcher 3 looks pretty amazing and drops frames at a really acceptable level. I feel like there's some level of forgetfulness when it comes to last gen. It's certainly true that the gap between PCs and consoles was temporarily smaller, but the end product wasn't that different. Gears of War is a modern classic, I loved it, and it was mindblowing, but it also dropped a ton of frames and TORE like nobody's business. I don't think it was so much more amazing than something like Ryse or the Order. I still feel like we took a very big leap.
I'm pretty satisfied with these machines. I still feel like there's a good amount of room to grow and if games stopped advancing at how The Witcher 3 looks for massive open world, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
I think this new obsession over technical performance is a good thing. It empowers gamers to make good decisions. But I feel like we're not very introspective here. We never had full HD games that ran at full framerate at all the time across all titles always. This one runs pretty damn good.
Weird because I remember a Carmack interview to Xbox magazine when he said the Xbox and PC were the target platforms for Doom 3.
Admittedly I never played it on Xbox, I'm kind of surprised it was so pared back.
We're only two years into a what 7 year console cycle..... What sort of sacrifices will the console version have to make when they get longer in the tooth? Surely this console cycle will be shorter.
Right. )
Ok, if you feel no shame, keep going, I wasn't expecting that from a warrior anyhow.
I think that will be somewhat ofset by general improvements in console SDK's and developer knowledge of the systems. Same as every other generation before. First gen titles vs last gen titles have shown considerable improvements.
If what CDPR said about the original reveal bring what they were developing is true makes you wonder why they didn't just tone back the assets for console release and let the PC version shine as truly superior (if you have the hardware). I mean why the hell not?
What setting is making the console versions look like there's no shadow? Shadows? AO? Foliage distance?
We're only two years into a what 7 year console cycle..... What sort of sacrifices will the console version have to make when they get longer in the tooth? Surely this console cycle will be shorter.
I dont think that we will such drastic improvements with this consoles... Problems will probably start in 2017 with them.
PS4 games wont be 1080p anymore for the most part etc...
I agree with this. It's not looking like there can be any improvements over time unless devs sacrifice something else.
I dont think that we will such drastic improvements with this consoles... Problems will probably start in 2017 with them.
PS4 games wont be 1080p anymore for the most part etc...
I'm pretty impressed with how the consoles handle PC ports this gem. I think Witcher 3 looks pretty amazing and drops frames at a really acceptable level. I feel like there's some level of forgetfulness when it comes to last gen. It's certainly true that the gap between PCs and consoles was temporarily smaller, but the end product wasn't that different. Gears of War is a modern classic, I loved it, and it was mindblowing, but it also dropped a ton of frames and TORE like nobody's business. I don't think it was so much more amazing than something like Ryse or the Order. I still feel like we took a very big leap.
I'm pretty satisfied with these machines. I still feel like there's a good amount of room to grow and if games stopped advancing at how The Witcher 3 looks for massive open world, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
I think this new obsession over technical performance is a good thing. It empowers gamers to make good decisions. But I feel like we're not very introspective here. We never had full HD games that ran at full framerate at all the time across all titles always. This one runs pretty damn good.
Edit: This is not apologia. I fully acknowledge the PC versions are the best and the PC is the best place to play games.
We're only two years into a what 7 year console cycle.... What sort of sorderrs will the console version have to make when they get longer in the tooth? Surely this console cycle will be shorter.
1080p/30 will be the standard for PS4 this gen. Even when games get more demanding, I doubt devs will drop the resolution. But frame rate will definitely take a hit. By 2018, we could possibly see these current gen consoles have sub 30FPS in most games. But it's no surprise really. Last gen games that came later (around 2011) had frame rate issues as well. Also, we'll definitely still see substantial leaps in visual fidelity between launch titles and late gen games, though probably not as big as Uncharted 1 to The Last Of Us.I dont think that we will such drastic improvements with this consoles... Problems will probably start in 2017 with them.
PS4 games wont be 1080p anymore for the most part etc...
Gaming sites gaf in particular Are for hardcore gaming enthusiast, also a small minority of consoles owners. I think the average console gamer see's games like The order,Driveclub,infamous would be amazed. Also see the scale of a game like bf4 64 players and be amazed. The average console gamer doesn't look at game Through a pc gamers lens like here on gaf. Imo I don't think the masses are as disappointed as you think.
Not for me personally, Some gems last gen werent even released on PC ( Dragons dogma, RDR, Asura's wrath, Bayonetta etc etc )..Not to mention First party games....I struggle to think of a PC exclusive that makes me want to play it, Star Citizen might change that.
Weird because I remember a Carmack interview to Xbox magazine when he said the Xbox and PC were the target platforms for Doom 3.
Admittedly I never played it on Xbox, I'm kind of surprised it was so pared back.
Yeah optimization it's over. Don't expect anything people, graphic can't improve without a Titan. Jeez again this stupid hyperbole. Yeah probably the gap with the pc will be larger than before but doesn't means graphic will not improve furthermore on console. Past generation games like this were almost impossible for the console. Today memory and bandwith at least are enough.I dont think that we will such drastic improvements with this consoles... Problems will probably start in 2017 with them.
PS4 games wont be 1080p anymore for the most part etc...