NextGen Console Graphics And Effects on PC (E3 Coverage!)

[tential]

Why are we even debating the Big Brother is Watching You Box?

Never meant for it to be a debate about any specific console. Just wanted to see how people felt about new games now that we are seeing some E3 coverage and seeing some of the new engines.

 

[mikegg]

Yeah ok Troll. If you think poor textures, lighting issues, and bland environments are awesome, then good for you. You are a true console gamer.

Ok troll. I'm not even a console gamer. I don't own a single console.. I own an i5 750 with an AMD 4850.

I have no bias. I just think that MGS5 looks awesome and better than anything we have out so far.

I'm really sorry if I hurt your your ego. Yes, your 7950 is probably more powerful. Happy?

 

[blackened23]

I can say with confidence right now that nothing good will come from this thread. Seems like it's turning into a huge PC vs console gaming fight, which is just old and tired (and obviously has been seen in tons of other threads....)

Now with regards to the graphics, obviously it's hard to judge right now; you can't judge overall graphical quality based on a 720p youtube clip, because even if the source is amazing, the streaming video quality will be substantially lower. For instance, I can youtube a video of Witcher 2 maxed out at 2560x1440 on youtube and it will look terrible, just by virtue of being a youtube video. Again, the point here is that it's too early to tell.

 

[escrow4]

Ok troll. I'm not even a console gamer. I don't own a single console.. I own an i5 750 with an AMD 4850.

I have no bias. I just think that MGS5 looks awesome and better than anything we have out so far.

I'm really sorry if I hurt your your ego. Yes, your 7950 is probably more powerful. Happy?

So you haven't experienced Metro: Last Light pushed to the limit, or Crysis 3 pushed to the limit. Those 2 games this year (so far) show what a PC can do and how next gen consoles won't come close. Next gen consoles have a tablet CPU, an average GPU (for a console), and only 8GB RAM which has to be shared. Within 2yrs they will be obsolete compared to mid range gaming boxes, they are already slow and old.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I don't understand your question. I don't think there are any PC games out right now that looks as good as the MGS5 video.

Eh? I just watched it and it looks nothing special. You must have a crappy PC

 

[Enigmoid]

I own an i5 750 with an AMD 4850.

I just think that MGS5 looks awesome and better than anything we have out so far.

A 4850? Yes probably.

 

[RampantAndroid]

for those who are wondering, check out that texture horse mane, LOOKS SO GOOD RIGHT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LnOXV4BQuJw#t=39s

99% chance everything before the gameplay is pre-rendered and it still looks bad

That...doesn't look so amazing. The horse's hide looks pretty off to me. Like they decided to rub the horse down with oil. Yuck.

 

[toyota]

the world looked real and natural but the vehicles and horses did not. thats the problem with graphics getting more realistic as some things will just stick out.

 

[Insomniator]

I can't tell who are trolls here.

Looking at the videos and pics posted... I am not particularly impressed by any of it. I would expect these consoles to look better and pc's to look a lot better when the time comes.

I wouldn't say MGS5 looks 'great', and those Ryse pics are seriously meh too. MGS5 looks like MGS4 in that video. I fully expect a lot more from next gen, console and PC.

 

[ozzy702]

Ok troll. I'm not even a console gamer. I don't own a single console.. I own an i5 750 with an AMD 4850.

I have no bias. I just think that MGS5 looks awesome and better than anything we have out so far.

I'm really sorry if I hurt your your ego. Yes, your 7950 is probably more powerful. Happy?

Not trying to bash you or anything but I ran that same setup three years ago @ 1080p. Now I'm running an overclocked 3770k with a 7970 and game at 2560x1440... the difference between games like what I was used to on my old setup and this right now is significant. I'm sure the consoles will be awesome for the money and I embrace both the XBOX One and the PS4 since they will finally allow PC gaming to make huge advances once more.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

the world looked real and natural but the vehicles and horses did not. thats the problem with graphics getting more realistic as some things will just stick out.

I thought the same thing. World looked amazing but the character, horses, etc looked like the settings were turned down to low.

This has huge potential on the pc if they decide to put the time into it.

 

[alcoholbob]

Ok troll. I'm not even a console gamer. I don't own a single console.. I own an i5 750 with an AMD 4850.

I have no bias. I just think that MGS5 looks awesome and better than anything we have out so far.

I'm really sorry if I hurt your your ego. Yes, your 7950 is probably more powerful. Happy?

It's better than PC games currently are on minimum details, lol, that is true. It's not better than "anything we have out so far" it's more like anything better than "you can run with your hardware."

 

[tential]

I can say with confidence right now that nothing good will come from this thread. Seems like it's turning into a huge PC vs console gaming fight, which is just old and tired (and obviously has been seen in tons of other threads....)

Now with regards to the graphics, obviously it's hard to judge right now; you can't judge overall graphical quality based on a 720p youtube clip, because even if the source is amazing, the streaming video quality will be substantially lower. For instance, I can youtube a video of Witcher 2 maxed out at 2560x1440 on youtube and it will look terrible, just by virtue of being a youtube video. Again, the point here is that it's too early to tell.

Ya I had high hopes for maturity going into making this thread and that people would in general not be stupid enough to use a 720p youtube clip.

People then let me down haha. We all know PC will look better, I just wanted to see what improvements we might see on PC versions or just PC exclusives moving forward but well... you know how it is. Hopefully the PC exclusive games will be quite ballin.

I'm excited for the new engines though on PC. The Witcher 3 on PC? Oh god....
I have high hopes though that we'll see engines that can push our CPUs to their limits and that will push for more cores with better physics implementation, and well just all the goodies.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

No way. Graphics definitely look better on the One than any PC games now.

I'm sorry.

In all seriousness if I played that game on pc I'd probably say meh. You really need to fire up crysis 3 on ultra settings before you go proclaiming teh bestest evar.

 

[Insomniator]

In all seriousness if I played that game on pc I'd probably say meh. You really need to fire up crysis 3 on ultra settings before you go proclaiming teh bestest evar.

He made all these arguments and then revealed he's on a 4850. He's a troll, even if he doesn't know it.

 

[finbarqs]

oh well people will always have their opinions, and graphics will surely become subjective. But I'm particularly impressed with MGS5. There are a fewthings that stick out, but as a whole package, it looks incredible. Better than my crappy Crysis 3 on Max detail running on my GTX 780 @ 1680x1050. To me, better graphics doesn't equal to higher resolution images. I mentioned this before, but the movie "Monster's, Inc." looks a lot better @ 480p than crysis 3 @ 4K.

 

[Phanuel]

I think a big part of the problem, as someone mentioned earlier, is that most games are made as multiplatform titles and designed to run under the constraints of existing console games. We no longer really have any studios working on extracting what is possible from a PC platform as they cannot transfer any of this graphics fidelity over to a 6 year old console.

So we end up with mediocre console ports with no additional resources devoted to increased texture quality or polygons or current DX11 enhancements.

How many DX10 and DX11 titles do we even have now? Most games are still DX9 if I recall.

Hopefully we'll see better graphics on the PC now that consoles have once again caught up.

 

[blastingcap]

What resolutions were the XBO games shown at, and how far away?

if it's 720p then it's 2/3 as many pixels as 1080p, which is a very popular resolution for PC gaming. This means the XBO framerate was perhaps as much as 50% higher than it would have been at 1080p.

Even then, the framerates didn't look so great in the youtube clip (but youtube can be deceiving). Neither did the textures look so great. (Ditto, so I with withhold final judgment until I see it somewhere better than youtube.)

Anyway, if you hook up a cheap PC gaming rig (say, last-gen PhII x4 965 + HD 6950) that could cost $500 or less, it would likely do pretty well at 720p. And PC gaming has lower operational costs in most areas (no XBLive subscription, cheaper games at launch and post-launch, can use off the shelf hardware and not proprietary stuff like proprietary hard drives, etc.).

So I ask again: what resolutions were the XBO games shown at, and how far away, and are the framerates and textures really as ho-hum as the youtube video made them look? If the demo of XBO was at 720p, then $500 is a horrific price imho. If at 1080p it depends on how much XBLive and games will cost, among other things, and how many cheats they had to use to extract performance (did they do AA etc. the real way or just blur stuff, etc.). I also want to know more about how XBO/PS4 will handle more CPU intensive tasks due to their relatively weak cores and the difficulty of multithreading some tasks.

P.S. Those of you trying to compare to Crysis 3 might want to look at the demo vs Crysis 3 differently. You get diminishing returns on GPU horsepower so it's not really useful to compare Crysis 3 maxed out vs this clip. I mean, try playing Crysis 3 maxed out vs Crysis 3 on more modest settings. Or the highest settings on Witcher 2 to more modest settings. Many times the fanciest AA, DoF, Tessellation, and lighting effects add little to image quality while savaging framerates. So it's just not that useful to compare such apples to oranges imho. I would rather compare the console level of image quality to the equivalent image quality on PC and inferring from that what PC hardware is equivalent to the console.

 

[tential]

What resolutions were the XBO games shown at, and how far away?

if it's 720p then it's 2/3 as many pixels as 1080p, which is a very popular resolution for PC gaming. This means the XBO framerate was perhaps as much as 50% higher than it would have been at 1080p.

Even then, the framerates didn't look so great in the youtube clip (but youtube can be deceiving). Neither did the textures look so great. (Ditto, so I with withhold final judgment until I see it somewhere better than youtube.)

Anyway, if you hook up a cheap PC gaming rig (say, last-gen PhII x4 965 + HD 6950) that could cost $500 or less, it would likely do pretty well at 720p. And PC gaming has lower operational costs in most areas (no XBLive subscription, cheaper games at launch and post-launch, can use off the shelf hardware and not proprietary stuff like proprietary hard drives, etc.).

So I ask again: what resolutions were the XBO games shown at, and how far away, and are the framerates and textures really as ho-hum as the youtube video made them look? If the demo of XBO was at 720p, then $500 is a horrific price imho. If at 1080p it depends on how much XBLive and games will cost, among other things, and how many cheats they had to use to extract performance (did they do AA etc. the real way or just blur stuff, etc.). I also want to know more about how XBO/PS4 will handle more CPU intensive tasks due to their relatively weak cores and the difficulty of multithreading some tasks.

P.S. Those of you trying to compare to Crysis 3 might want to look at the demo vs Crysis 3 differently. You get diminishing returns on GPU horsepower so it's not really useful to compare Crysis 3 maxed out vs this clip. I mean, try playing Crysis 3 maxed out vs Crysis 3 on more modest settings. Or the highest settings on Witcher 2 to more modest settings. Many times the fanciest AA, DoF, Tessellation, and lighting effects add little to image quality while savaging framerates. So it's just not that useful to compare such apples to oranges imho. I would rather compare the console level of image quality to the equivalent image quality on PC and inferring from that what PC hardware is equivalent to the console.

All of the games shown were advertised to be 60 FPS 1080p clips. They panned in and out from screens and then showed actual screens sometimes. It moved around and switched views this is 1080p 60 FPS and the youtube stream was running at 720p though. So we most DEFINITELY missed out on a LOT of detail. To make it even worse though, games look a lot different in your living room compared to seeing it at a press conference live stream haha. I've been trying to explain this to people for awhile haha.

I'm curious to see how people react after seeing this next hour (dunno how long this press conference will last actually) of Sony's PS4 with more enhanced hardware. We know PS4 has better hardware, we know these are PS4 exclusives, how do you guys feel about next gen games on PC after seeing this?

 

[blastingcap]

All of the games shown were advertised to be 60 FPS 1080p clips. They panned in and out from screens and then showed actual screens sometimes. It moved around and switched views this is 1080p 60 FPS and the youtube stream was running at 720p though. So we most DEFINITELY missed out on a LOT of detail. To make it even worse though, games look a lot different in your living room compared to seeing it at a press conference live stream haha. I've been trying to explain this to people for awhile haha.

I'm curious to see how people react after seeing this next hour (dunno how long this press conference will last actually) of Sony's PS4 with more enhanced hardware. We know PS4 has better hardware, we know these are PS4 exclusives, how do you guys feel about next gen games on PC after seeing this?

OK that is promising re: the 1080p resolution and framerate.

The weakest console (namely the XBO.... Wii U will likely be as ignored as the Wii is today relative to XB360 and PS3) will be the limiting factor. So whatever advantages PS4 has won't matter... it'll be like today's situation where consolification has put a lid on the maximum image quality you get from PCs playing the same game, unless the gamedev specifically amped up the IQ for the PC version (which many gamedevs do not do).

I have to laugh though at the game that the Bastion guys made... that platformer looks like it could run on the original Wii, no PS4 horsepower necessary.

 

[Attic]

the world looked real and natural but the vehicles and horses did not. thats the problem with graphics getting more realistic as some things will just stick out.

This is why I mostly like steam punk graphics. Doesn't have the hyper real thing going against it.


The graphics I'm seeing from E3 for the next gen consoles leave me very disappointed. Way below what I'd expect given E3 is where they are going to be showing perhaps beyond what the consoles can do realtime.

 

[lilrayray69]

Well it looks a lot better than what console gamers are used to seeing, which is their primary target I'd think - along with the htpc type draw.

I thought MGS5 looked good, though I don't see much of a jump to label it "next-gen". Personally I never liked MGS, and 5 looks just as boring.

I think PS4/Xbox One will be on par with PC graphics for a year or two, except for very high end PCs that run 1440p or 1600p. But most PC gamers use 1080p because the price jump to higher resolution monitors at the moment is still pretty high.

I'm just glad progress is being made. As this level of graphics becomes more standard, hopefully they can add better gameplay with it. Honestly I'm just hoping this next-gen brings prices of higher resolution monitors down, cause I'd love to play in 1440p but the cost is crazy

edit: Also, is it just me or does BF4 look hardly different than BF3? I honestly don't know why they are making it. Well, for money of course. But as others have said, it's just BF3.5

 

[videogames101]

Well it looks a lot better than what console gamers are used to seeing, which is their primary target I'd think - along with the htpc type draw.

I thought MGS5 looked good, though I don't see much of a jump to label it "next-gen". Personally I never liked MGS, and 5 looks just as boring.

I think PS4/Xbox One will be on par with PC graphics for a year or two, except for very high end PCs that run 1440p or 1600p. But most PC gamers use 1080p because the price jump to higher resolution monitors at the moment is still pretty high.

I'm just glad progress is being made. As this level of graphics becomes more standard, hopefully they can add better gameplay with it. Honestly I'm just hoping this next-gen brings prices of higher resolution monitors down, cause I'd love to play in 1440p but the cost is crazy

edit: Also, is it just me or does BF4 look hardly different than BF3? I honestly don't know why they are making it. Well, for money of course. But as others have said, it's just BF3.5

what was bf2142 if not bf2.5

 

[Red Hawk]

- The Xbox and PS4 are frozen in time for the next 6 years, while next year there will be new graphics cards for PCs

Not necessarily. Just try comparing launch titles on the 360 and PS3 to games that came out this year. Developers can get a lot of mileage out of optimizing for a fixed hardware setup like consoles, whereas your PC graphics card will generally always have the same amount of performance.

These consoles will probably peak more quickly than the last console generation did, as the architecture in both is pretty straightforward. They won't require voodoo magic to get the best performance out of them like the PS3 did.

Yes. Show me a PC game that look as good as Metal Gear Solid 5.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/10/e3-2013-metal-gear-solid-v-coming-to-xbox-one

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/...assins-of-kings-disdain---fear-launch-trailer (warning: NSFW)

The "next gen" has been on PCs for a while now. The Witcher 2, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, etc. What MGS5 does may be relatively on par with those, but it's nothing really new or special.

And remember that high-end graphics cards can run all those games with higher AA modes and resolution -- 1440p and above. With 8 GB of DDR3 memory, only marginally faster than the GDDR3 that was in the 360, the Xbox One will probably soon run into a memory bandwidth problem if not a memory space problem. The PS4 should be spared this problem for a while, as Sony went to the extent of putting 8 GB of fast GDDR5 memory into the console. As good as MGS5 looks on the Xbox One, it will look quite a bit better on the PS4.

Ok troll. I'm not even a console gamer. I don't own a single console.. I own an i5 750 with an AMD 4850.

I have no bias. I just think that MGS5 looks awesome and better than anything we have out so far.

I'm really sorry if I hurt your your ego. Yes, your 7950 is probably more powerful. Happy?

Well that explains it. You haven't actually seen what a PC game at full blast can do in person. Your graphics card is a good deal weaker even on paper than the chip in the Xbox One, and you can't even use DirectX 11 features.

 

[mikegg]

Not necessarily. Just try comparing launch titles on the 360 and PS3 to games that came out this year. Developers can get a lot of mileage out of optimizing for a fixed hardware setup like consoles, whereas your PC graphics card will generally always have the same amount of performance.

These consoles will probably peak more quickly than the last console generation did, as the architecture in both is pretty straightforward. They won't require voodoo magic to get the best performance out of them like the PS3 did.



http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/...assins-of-kings-disdain---fear-launch-trailer (warning: NSFW)

The "next gen" has been on PCs for a while now. The Witcher 2, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, etc. What MGS5 does may be relatively on par with those, but it's nothing really new or special.

All I can do is compare 720p video trailers to 720p video trailers and I'd say these announced games look better than anything PC has put out so far.

And remember that high-end graphics cards can run all those games with higher AA modes and resolution -- 1440p and above. With 8 GB of DDR3 memory, only marginally faster than the GDDR3 that was in the 360, the Xbox One will probably soon run into a memory bandwidth problem if not a memory space problem. The PS4 should be spared this problem for a while, as Sony went to the extent of putting 8 GB of fast GDDR5 memory into the console. As good as MGS5 looks on the Xbox One, it will look quite a bit better on the PS4.



Well that explains it. You haven't actually seen what a PC game at full blast can do in person. Your graphics card is a good deal weaker even on paper than the chip in the Xbox One, and you can't even use DirectX 11 features.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/39ydoj/the-order-1886-e3-2013--gameplay-debut--stream-

Looks far better than the Witcher 2.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/iz5bzn/the-division-e3-2013--debut-gameplay--stream-

Looks far better than Witcher 2.

Destiny also looks far better than Witcher 2. They are not even comparable.

Look, I have no bias. I don't even game. I own no consoles. The only game I play from time to time is Starcraft 2. I've watched many trailers and videos of Crisis 3. I don't think Crisis 3 looks better than many of the announced games.