Something wrong with PC devs?

[BenSkywalker]

So I'm sitting around playing KZ2 and something seems off so I fire up the PC to make sure- yep, KZ2 can go toe to toe with Crysis cranked up, using a 7900GT(being generous- and I mean KZ2 is running on a 7900GT, not Crysis ). There is some give and take on which is better overall(Crysis for water, KZ for particles etc) but the two titles are easily directly comparable to each other, why is anything approaching this possible? Yes, I'm running Vista not some Win3.1 varriation with DX9, cranking everything to Very High on Crysis- no it isn't very playable, yes- KZ2 is

Obviously fixed hardware has a huge advantage an over open platform, but the level of disparity here is simply shocking. Tired and outdated, ram starved and with laughable shader power and in direct competition with the strongest PC visuals to date. On that same line- why is Crysis still sitting on top? Where is Sweeney? Carmack? You guys give up? Not taking anything away from the Crytek guys, but why the hell aren't we seeing better utilization of available resources in current hardware? Why is the upstart sitting on top for years, realisticly unchallenged by anyone? Why hasn't anyone at least offered comparable visuals with better performance? Why aren't we seeing the envelope pushed anymore?

How many vid card generations are we going to sit through still asking the same question- how well can it run Crysis? It's absurd. Again, not trying to take anything away from the Crytek team as they did a hell of a job, but this industry is built around rapid progress, the hardware side hasn't slowed down, why has the software side, in essence, stopped?

I understand the diminishing returns issues quite well, but why not a faster engine with comparable visual quality? Seeing a seriously underpowered system pull of the same visual quality with significantly weaker hardware leaves me scratching my head a bit- where are you PC devs? When are you coming back to show us some new stuff?

Crysis took the throne 15 months ago and we haven't even seen what I would call a viable attempt at removing them, that is simply laughable in this industry. I understand that games aren't just about the visuals, moreso then a lot of people actually, but there are a whole lot of people whose job it is to make the visuals in games as good as they can, where have they all gone? What have they all been doing?

 

[thilanliyan]

KZ2 is rendered at a fairly low resolution isn't it?

 

[nitromullet]

KZ2 can go toe to toe with Crysis cranked up

Not from the screen shots I have seen. Also, the internal frambuffer for KZ2 on the PS3 is probably something along the lines of 1280x720, while pretty much no one benchmarks or plays PC games at such a low resolution.

Obviously fixed hardware has a huge advantage an over open platform

This is a myth console gamers like to spread. Yes, it is easier or faster to develop for a fixed platform because you know your target. However, the supposed hardware optimization for the fixed hardware consoles generally appears to be nothing more than reduced resolutions, reduced texture sizes, or reduced effects. These are all 'optimizations' that PC gamers refer to as "turning down the eye candy", which really means "making the game look like crap".

Don't get me wrong, console games look great on a plasma or LCD HDTV in your living room, but drop a console on your desk with a 1920x1080 capable LCD designed to run as a computer monitor and play it as you would a PC game. There is no comparison between consoles and a decent PC. The console will present you with a low rez image upscaled to 1920x1080 with low rez textures, while even a ~$150 Radeon HD 4850 can be coaxed to play Crysis at 1920x1080 at pretty high settings. You will have to tweak the settings a bit to get the most out of the Radeon, but it's PC gaming so you can.

Another example. Yes, Oblivion ran like crap on a 7800GTX at 1680x1050 (what I played it at back then), but an Xbox 360 runs Fallout 3 (same engine) with an internal frame buffer somewhere along the lines of 1280x720 just to keep up, and IIRC correctly Fallout 3 lacks any Anti-aliasing on the PS3.

the hardware side hasn't slowed down, why has the software side, in essence, stopped?

Consoles drive game development now for the most part. So, until we get new consoles, yes the hardware side has slowed down.

 

[chizow]

I'd agree console ports on the PC tend to look better than exclusives, Crysis being the exception. But the console ports on the PC absolutely destroy their console counterparts provided they scale to PC hardware. Exclusives also tend to look better than console games, although I'd say there's certainly less consistency, polish, and quality of visuals relative to performance.

From personal experience I'd rank visuals like this, with relative ratings:

[*]1) Crysis PC
[*]3) PC version console ports/multi-platform
[*]8) PC Exclusives
[*]10) Console Exclusives or console versions of multi-platform titles
.
.
.
[*]100) Anything on the Wii (my eyes bled when I saw COD:WAW on the Wii)[/list]
I haven't seen Kill Zone 2 in action or pored over any screenshots, but I'd also wonder if you're comparing the same resolutions, as resolution is clearly an advantage the PC holds over the console. I'm still amazed by how visually stunning Crysis is every time I go back and play it. What makes it even more impressive is noticing the attention to detail and accuracy after noticing ways other games cut corners for the sake efficiency or performance.

For other ports or multi-platform titles I have seen first-hand, the PC version absolutely puts the console versions to shame. GoW, GTA4, ME, Bioshock, COD4/5, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia etc....comparing between PC and console is really no contest. Beyond the obvious GPU-related improvements with resolution, textures, filtering, AA, shading, color saturation and contrast, there's system/cpu/ram benefits like view distance, clipping distance, object density/detail. And of course the PC version isn't locked to lower frame caps like 30 for the consoles, which is both a blessing and a curse.

Overall I'd agree console devs do a better job of scaling and taking advantage of the hardware they're given. I still think PC exclusives can look better than console exclusives, but the level of polish and production quality can vary greatly also. Performance relative to visuals can also be all over the place on PC exclusives.

 

[alcoholbob]

I would imagine Killzone 2 to be slightly more optimized. Firstly, it's 2 years younger, and secondly, to take advantage of console hardware multithreading is a must. Crysis does not scale beyond 2 cores and there's constant hard drive access which bogs down performance.

 

[HOOfan 1]

IMO Killzone 2's graphics don't even look any better than Gears of War's

 

[Slugbait]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Where is Sweeney? Carmack? You guys give up?

Dunno about Sweeney, but Carmack still appears to be on the same path he's always followed:

MPC ? Ok so, Rage and id Tech 5. You guys are going DirectX 9, which we completely understand and we think most people understand the reasons for doing that level.

JC ? Well on PC we?re actually still OpenGL.

MPC ? Right but DirectX 9 level of shader. Do you really think that Directx 10, and 11 now, are even necessary?

JC ? They really aren?t. <blah, blah, blah...>

 

[BenSkywalker]

Not from the screen shots I have seen. Also, the internal frambuffer for KZ2 on the PS3 is probably something along the lines of 1280x720, while pretty much no one benchmarks or plays PC games at such a low resolution.

Play it for starters, next up though

12x10 Crysis numbers very high. That's no AA, no AF.

Nitro- I am not sure if your post was in jest or pure and profound ignorance, so I really don't know how to reply. I will touch on two points, one is that fixed hardware is faster by default-

While you would think that the consoles are basically equivalent to a 6800 in a 512mb PC the reality is that all layers of inefficiency on the PC and the drivers mean that you really need twice the PC to get the equivalent play of the consoles. But when we have PCs that are 4 or 8 times as powerful as the latest consoles, it?ll help.

That's a quote from a guy that actually has a little bit of time writing code, maybe he's even a bit better then you at it.

Another example. Yes, Oblivion ran like crap on a 7800GTX at 1680x1050 (what I played it at back then), but an Xbox 360 runs Fallout 3 (same engine) with an internal frame buffer somewhere along the lines of 1280x720 just to keep up, and IIRC correctly Fallout 3 lacks any Anti-aliasing on the PS3.

This is the kind of approach that is bothering me about PC development- devs are doing nothing if the only way you improve visuals is by upping AA and AF. That is why I pointedly aimed my comments about software devs, I KNOW the hardware is there to do a LOT more- it is simply a lack of execution/talent on the software dev side of things. If anyone feels the need to justify PC devs because you can increase the res, AA or AF you are simply supporting the point that PC devs, at the moment, are sucking.

I haven't seen Kill Zone 2 in action

That is the singular game I am talking about, nothing else I have seen is really close and I was just flat out shocked how good it looked. The other titles you mention all look flat out horrible by comparison(well, I suppose GoW would fall into the sub par and not horrible range).

Beyond the obvious GPU-related improvements with resolution, textures, filtering, AA, shading, color saturation and contrast,

Some of these don't make any sense to me- color saturation and contrast? You playing on some POS TV or something? Check out a PS3 via HDMI hooked up to a Kuros and point out the color, heh, 'advantages' of PC LCDs That is getting off the subject though.

I would imagine Killzone 2 to be slightly more optimized.

This is what I'm getting at- KZ2 shouldn't be remotely comparable to what a high end PC can do now. 7900GT to GTX 295? Why is there any oppurtunity to compare them? It used to be the deeper into a console's life cycle the further away the PCs would scream ahead, that isn't close to the case anymore. Now the PCs are sliding backwards in relation to their game peers, there is NO excuse for this at all on a technical/hardware basis. We have WAY more GPU power in our PCs then the consoles do, by a long shot. Obviously, console devs are far, far more talented the PC exclusive devs but the difference shouldn't approach the levels we are seeing today. When a console dev can go toe to toe with a system offering ten times the performance and ouput comparable visuals we have a problem. I know PCs lost Sweeney and Carmack to hold up their standard- but is there noone else capable of making somehwhat decent use of the TFLOP chips we have now? Is it really that hard?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
but is there noone else capable of making somehwhat decent use of the TFLOP chips we have now? Is it really that hard?

The products you evaluate are created out of commercial motivations to make someone money.

The question you ought to be asking is: Is there really an insufficient profit incentive available to justify elevating the cost structure at these businesses as would be necessary in order to hire more programmers, or give the existing one more time, to develop a product that uses more of the available horsepower?

It's all about ROI, not work ethic or talent, and a balance of risk vs reward. Be too aggressive on the deliverables and you risk meeting crucial delivery dates, causing the reward entitlement to decline for your investment.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
That is the singular game I am talking about, nothing else I have seen is really close and I was just flat out shocked how good it looked. The other titles you mention all look flat out horrible by comparison(well, I suppose GoW would fall into the sub par and not horrible range).

You really think Killzone 2 looks THAT good? I don't see it at all. They are good graphics, no better than Gears of War, and certainly not as good as Crysis at Very High settings. I've heard reviewers ding it for some low res textures.

 

[frythecpuofbender]

Does KZ2 extensively use Parallax Occlusion Mapping and SSAO? Cause that right there would be a giant difference.
The screenshots and demovideos I saw didn't look as good as Crysis at all. Pretty dark, harsh lighting, not natural or bouncing off of something. Is there a Day/Night cycle or dynamic light source for all the shadows? Are the shadows dynamic and soft?

And here is something about the render resolution, directly from one of the devs:

"If Killzone 2 detects a TV that is set to 1080p or 1080i and cannot switch to 720p (our preferred resolution, for if your TV supports it), then it will render in 960x1080 and horizontally scale that to 1080i/p.
The advantage of doing this (over rendering 720p and then upscaling it to 1080i/p) is that you don't have *any* vertical scaling, and analog TV's don't even have a horizontal resolution. The result is a much clearer picture with much less artifacts for those who have a 1080i/p only set. Killzone's adviced resolution is 720p, we just made sure that if you have a 1080i/p only set, it looks much better than the 'naive' implementation of upscaling 720p"

So KZ2 either renders 921600 pixel (720p) or 1036800 pixel (1080i) which is HALF the pixels a card has to push for real HD @ 1080p.
I bet their textures aren't at 2048x2048 or anything like that either.

The complaints about Crysis engine performance come from the urge to play at resolutions 1680x1050 or higher.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The products you evaluate are created out of commercial motivations to make someone money.

I make my living by seeing commercial demands months in advance and making sure supply channels are properly supplied for precisely when said demands will reach given levels. You shouldn't assume that someone hasn't properly analyzed the available data before entering a discussion, it comes off as rather heavily condescending.

The question you ought to be asking is: Is there really an insufficient profit incentive available to justify elevating the cost structure at these businesses as would be necessary in order to hire more programmers, or give the existing one more time, to develop a product that uses more of the available horsepower?

John Carmack very close to by himself lead PCs to domination over consoles with his graphics engine technology. Increased costs due to programmers would be trivial compared to the costs associated with development of the art assets that would need to be developed for such a title. Look to a typical game developed by Square and the associated development costs for art assets versus code development, it is more then 10:1.

That brings us to the next element. More advanced graphics rendering technologies results in reduction of art assets costs as shaders are procedural and the ability to recycle them offering enormous amounts of differing end visuals on an individual basis reduces one of the more time consuming elements of asset creation- textures. This isn't the path that all developers take, but in boiling it down to the core balance sheet factors it is by far the most effective method for improving visual fidelity with the lowest overhead. This isn't to say that a truly 'next gen' title will have lower asset costs then an outdated one, only that the cost increases associated with the higher fidelity assets can be largely mitigated by improving the level of technology utilized by your developers.

It's all about ROI, not work ethic or talent, and a balance of risk vs reward. Be too aggressive on the deliverables and you risk meeting crucial delivery dates, causing the reward entitlement to decline for your investment.

So why don't we take a look at it from a ROI perspective? If we go back throughout PC gaming over the last, let's say 13 years(not a random number, that is when PC games truly went 3D) how many games that defined the top visual experience have delivered an ROI of less then 100%? None would be the answer. Crysis was largely considered a sales 'flop' and had an ROI of ~300%. That I can think of, there is no other singular way you can categorize a game and speak with certainty about how profitable it will end up being. BTW- Quake, Unreal, Quake2, Quake3, UT, Quake3, Doom3, Crysis.

You'll probably notice a pattern pre Crysis, eventually the Sweeney/Carmack games would be surpassed by 'normal' games, but whenever a major visual leap is made, it is as close to money in the bank as you can get in the gaming industry(outside of having WoW in your title ).

Also, missing crucial delivery dates? In the gaming industry? That comes off as somewhat comical honestly. This isn't an industry build on making dates. Probably the latest game versus projected on the list above, Doom3, only generated around $150Million in revenue. For PC gaming, that is rather huge.

On a side note about your comments- EA figured out that exactly how you described game development should be analyzed is what dragged them down. The game industry is an entertainment industry- it is not durable goods nor commodities. Very different factors determine how you best judge where your development dollars are spent. I touched on the points you bring up just to illustrate the fact that even the bean counters can see the logic in what I'm talking about.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You really think Killzone 2 looks THAT good?

Side by side, yes. You played it side by side with KZ2?

I've heard reviewers ding it for some low res textures.

Crysis has some low rez textures too I'm in no way saying KZ2 is the second coming of graphics engines, it certainly isn't perfect- neither is Crysis, and that is the basis for my end of the discussion. PCs can do much better the Crysis, why aren't they coming remotely close?

Does KZ2 extensively use Parallax Occlusion Mapping and SSAO? Cause that right there would be a giant difference.

Hehe, why is that exactly? I get extremely amused when I see someone state that a particular feature makes a game look better. No matter what features you use, it is always what you do with them that will make the difference. Doom3's render engine was honestly quite simplistic in the features that it utilized during its timeframe, but by making extremely heavy useage of underutilized features it managed to stand alone in its end visual representation.

The complaints about Crysis engine performance come from the urge to play at resolutions 1680x1050 or higher.

Benches I linked above were at 1280x1024 without AA/AF and still not showing anything near what PC gamers look for in the 'silky smooth' department(GTX 280 under 30FPS, and it was the fastest single card tested).

 

[nosfe]

why is it that when comparing PC games and console games it always revolves around shooters and graphics?(with some minor exceptions). Don't you guys play anything else?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

The products you evaluate are created out of commercial motivations to make someone money.

I make my living by seeing commercial demands months in advance and making sure supply channels are properly supplied for precisely when said demands will reach given levels. You shouldn't assume that someone hasn't properly analyzed the available data before entering a discussion, it comes off as rather heavily condescending.

Thanks for providing me an example of what a non-condescending post would look like.

The world is a better place with exemplary posters of your nature. :roll:

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
On a side note about your comments- EA figured out that exactly how you described game development should be analyzed is what dragged them down. The game industry is an entertainment industry- it is not durable goods nor commodities. Very different factors determine how you best judge where your development dollars are spent. I touched on the points you bring up just to illustrate the fact that even the bean counters can see the logic in what I'm talking about.

What I described are the tenants of basic business practice.

Attack the business practice (or me for that matter) all you like, it doesn't change the reality of the fact that you asked a question out of seeming ignorance to the ways that the world works, to which I then took the time to assist you in expanding your understanding.

I see you prefer to insist that your point of view is correct, so let's all just assume as you do that you are the smartest person you have ever met and that only you are intelligent enough as to be capable of answering your own questions - so yes, I see it now, there can be absolutely no business financial reasons why no one is making somewhat decent use of existing TFLOPS chips we have, it really isn't that hard, it all comes down to lazy untalented programmers. :roll:

 

[garritynet]

Don't forget the people who want to play games on their computers that don't even have 7900GT level performance cards. Even those that do might be running it off of a 2.8g Northwood or a 3800+ or something. I've know people who recently became quite annoyed with me when I suggested that a FX 5500 might not cut it with todays games. The problem is creating a fantastically beautiful game that scales backwards.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
This is the kind of approach that is bothering me about PC development- devs are doing nothing if the only way you improve visuals is by upping AA and AF. That is why I pointedly aimed my comments about software devs, I KNOW the hardware is there to do a LOT more- it is simply a lack of execution/talent on the software dev side of things. If anyone feels the need to justify PC devs because you can increase the res, AA or AF you are simply supporting the point that PC devs, at the moment, are sucking.

I'd say the problem comes from the PC having a much lower common denominator than the consoles when it comes to hardware. For whatever reason, the number of PCs with capable hardware does not translate into actual game sales, so once you cut that number down to people who actually buy games, you have a huge disparity in hardware capability (just look at Steam Survey to get an idea). Then you have some of the best-selling games on the PC that do nothing to push the hardware envelope (Sims, WoW, Spore), basically the kind of crap someone would buy a Wii for, and not a PS3 or 360.

That is the singular game I am talking about, nothing else I have seen is really close and I was just flat out shocked how good it looked. The other titles you mention all look flat out horrible by comparison(well, I suppose GoW would fall into the sub par and not horrible range).

So Killzone 2 would look about on par with any of those titles on the PC then? I did finally look at some screenshots and honestly, they don't look like anything special. Looks like Gears of FEAR 2. Also, are you judging those titles I listed based on how they look on consoles or the PC? Because again, they all put the console versions to shame. Matching PC visuals on the console is literally dropping resolution to 720p and setting everything to low.

Some of these don't make any sense to me- color saturation and contrast? You playing on some POS TV or something? Check out a PS3 via HDMI hooked up to a Kuros and point out the color, heh, 'advantages' of PC LCDs That is getting off the subject though.

I guess it just shows how long its been since you actually gamed on the PC. I'm using XBox 360 via HDMI on a 46" Bravia XBR and a PS3 on a 56" Regza as frames of reference, but here's a comparison gallery for GTA4. Its a pretty common omplaint I see about consoles with regard to "washed out" colors. Its seems pretty common for many recent games where consoles are forced to further drop visual quality to balance frame rate if they fall too far from their 30FPS cap.

We have WAY more GPU power in our PCs then the consoles do, by a long shot. Obviously, console devs are far, far more talented the PC exclusive devs but the difference shouldn't approach the levels we are seeing today. When a console dev can go toe to toe with a system offering ten times the performance and ouput comparable visuals we have a problem. I know PCs lost Sweeney and Carmack to hold up their standard- but is there noone else capable of making somehwhat decent use of the TFLOP chips we have now? Is it really that hard?

There probably is some truth to consoles attracting more talented or technically capable people, but I'd also credit the more rigid development cycle and turnaround you'll see on the console compared to the PC. You simply don't get games with "old" graphics like you see on the PC with games that drag on in development for years. Of course PC purists will counter that you won't see the story quality or length on the console as a result. Probably some truth to both.

Sweeney and Carmack have both switched their focus to consoles from what I've seen from their interviews, which is unfortunate. But I think their last couple of lackluster releases being overambitious or late, or just selling poorly contributed to that decision as much as anything else (they also cite piracy). Realistically the console cycle suits their engine development cycles perfectly, so again, the decision makes perfect sense from a business perspective rather than trying to constantly hit a moving target on the PC when it comes to hardware.

It is sad though to see the best quality visuals on the PC mainly coming from console ports nowadays. Perhaps its because PC devs are saddled by a lower common denominator when it comes to target/baseline hardware, but that still doesn't let them completely off the hook given how well console ports scale on the PC.

 

[garritynet]

Also, missing crucial delivery dates? In the gaming industry? That comes off as somewhat comical honestly.

Christmas.

 

[nosfe]

i hate christmas, a lot of games get rushed to make the deadline and end up being crap because of it or buggy/incomplete at best

 

[Piuc2020]

I have a PS3 (with the KZ2 demo) hooked up to a 32" 1080p LCD TV and Crysis running on a 1920x1200 LCD monitor, there's really no comparison.

The only reason Killzone 2 looks good is because it uses WAAAAY too many motion and depth of field blur, it gives the game a "realistic" almost "CGI" feel but the actual graphics are great for a console but don't compare at all to Crysis, the textures are low-res, there's aliasing everywhere (which is very noticeable when running at a meager 1280x720 resolution), lighting is pretty basic (but done well) and the models and animation are pretty much the only stand outs (though they still don't compare to Crysis) and that's only because of adept artistic direction not technical superiority.

Killzone 2 looks great but there's no way it even comes close to Crysis, I've played them both side by side and to be honest, I think MGS4 looks better, it just doesn't have that "CGI" feel from the excessive blurring, heck, RE5 has some pretty spiffy visuals, probably better than KZ2's just judging by the demo.

 

[BenSkywalker]

why is it that when comparing PC games and console games it always revolves around shooters and graphics?

All I'm talking about is graphics in this post, I use shooters as it would very, very unfair to enter into the only other genre that comes close to pushing the graphics envelope(racing games). Polyphony can bank on at least $250Million in revenue on one of their racing titles, I don't think every PC racing game over the last five years combined can hit that.

What I described are the tenants of basic business practice.

And you ignore the analysis in regard to said tenants. You ignore that the ROI has already been given due consideration, you ignore that your cost analysis focus was faulty in terms of importance in regard to the particular element we are discussing and furthermore that the correct cost analysis has already been utilized- and that using either one the end effect still comes out as a huge net gain.

Attack the business practice (or me for that matter) all you like, it doesn't change the reality of the fact that you asked a question out of seeming ignorance to the ways that the world works, to which I then took the time to assist you in expanding your understanding.

You assumed me to be ignorant. You assumed that I wasn't aware of fundamentals of business and then made a leap and displayed ignorance of cost analaysis on a subject matter it would appear you are not very well versed in. I state displayed and appear as I don't know what you know, and in my life the only people I have ever truly considered 'stupid' are those that think they know what someone else does. This particular discussion was about the underlying technology, if it were asking for a billion dollar investment with no chance to recover the initial investment your comments may have been well warranted. Given that reviews that state that a given title is a generational leap in visual quality and the sales figures are readily available to those who know how to look for it assuming that financial considerations have not been contemplated demonstrates that you made an assumption that this thread was created by someone who was too ignorant to do a bit of research before starting it.

I see you prefer to insist that your point of view is correct, so let's all just assume as you do that you are the smartest person you have ever met and that only you are intelligent enough as to be capable of answering your own questions

These are the types of comments I see as truly stupid. You offered a comment, I explained that those factors had already been taken into account, leaving a floating variable of that magnitude when dealing with millions of dollars is simply not acceptable- you come back with the implication that I am some how projecting my own infallibility. If there is another factor beyond those which you stated in your first post then why not state it? All of the data I make mention of in my post is readily available.

Then you have some of the best-selling games on the PC that do nothing to push the hardware envelope (Sims, WoW, Spore), basically the kind of crap someone would buy a Wii for, and not a PS3 or 360.

WoW in Dalaran on a Weekend evening runs much slower then Crysis maxxed out on my system, it pushes hardware in different ways is all

Also, are you judging those titles I listed based on how they look on consoles or the PC?

If a shooter is available for both platforms, I get it for the PC, it's a no brainer

I guess it just shows how long its been since you actually gamed on the PC. I'm using XBox 360 via HDMI on a 46" Bravia XBR and a PS3 on a 56" Regza as frames of reference

Yikes- OK, you bring up a Regaza, sorry bro, that's like talking about your bad @ss SiS graphics card today You don't mention which XBR either, not that it truly matters, Kuros is just in a different league for exactly the qualities you mention. LCDs aren't yet to the point where they are 'good' for IQ, although the LED backlit ones are certainly well on their way

but here's a comparison gallery for GTA4

It would have been cool if they could have gotten screenshots you could really compare, but that is another issue I'm not saying ports don't have some huge advantages on the PC, that actually only reinforces my point precisely. Why aren't PC exclusives throttling console exclusives?

You simply don't get games with "old" graphics like you see on the PC with games that drag on in development for years. Of course PC purists will counter that you won't see the story quality or length on the console as a result. Probably some truth to both.

I'm not a PC or console guy, I'm a gamer. I own all the platforms as platform bigotry may be something some people think is cool, I just want to play the best games. I bring this thread up mainly as my PC SHOULD stomp anything my console is capable of into the ground and do it handily on a visual basis. That isn't happening.

Sweeney and Carmack have both switched their focus to consoles from what I've seen from their interviews, which is unfortunate.

I'm let down by this development for two different reasons. One is that the PC lost its' two main driving forces on the software side which has obviously hurt advancement. Second would be to date it seems like they really aren't up to speed on the console side. From what I've seen, the old school console stalwarts are still easily outperforming the new kids on the block when it comes to getting the most out of a piece of hardware. In a way, it makes me long for the days when Carmack and Sweeney ignored the consoles all together. Go back to dominating your market instead of swimming in mediocricity

 

[BenSkywalker]

I have a PS3 (with the KZ2 demo) hooked up to a 32" 1080p LCD TV and Crysis running on a 1920x1200 LCD monitor, there's really no comparison.

The only reason Killzone 2 looks good is because it uses WAAAAY too many motion and depth of field blur

Interesting, you get the demo off of PSN? The demo I had hardly had any DoF at all in it, there weren't really any wide open spaces in it. Some really nice particle effects though(all the dust blowing through the air, gave the game a real gritty look).

the textures are low-res....lighting is pretty basic (but done well) and the models and animation are pretty much the only stand outs (though they still don't compare to Crysis)

Lighting model is basic in what you saw, although I would argue it is at least as complex as Crysis's demo What element do you think Crysis has an edge on for models or animations? That is actually one area where I thought KZ2 had some rather clear advantages. Crysis went a bit too far on the 'rag doll' IMO with people falling in very unrealistic ways, seems like their IK wasn't tuned right for a corpse Weapons models on KZ2 seem head and shoulders above Crysis, although I will certainly agree with you Crysis has clear edge in texture resolution. Aliasing I consider pretty much a non factor for this dicussion not that it isn't an entirely valid point- but that isn't due to graphics code at all and simply due to more hardware being thrown at base code. For the record I think Crysis does have a clear advantage in the water, although I think I already mentioned that. I don't just mean the top layer shader, but the physical interaction and how the water beads and rolls also.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
WoW in Dalaran on a Weekend evening runs much slower then Crysis maxxed out on my system, it pushes hardware in different ways is all

Heh ya I've heard the Wrath updates bring even the fastest rigs to their knees, but from what I've read its not so much a graphics limitation, but more of a CPU/netcode bottleneck. WAR suffered similarly in crowded areas and PVP.

If a shooter is available for both platforms, I get it for the PC, it's a no brainer

I agree, but again, if you're able to crank up those games on the PC, they're absolutely going to put their console counterparts to shame. Which is why I'm confused by your statements about them looking mediocre or whatever on the PC.

Yikes- OK, you bring up a Regaza, sorry bro, that's like talking about your bad @ss SiS graphics card today You don't mention which XBR either, not that it truly matters, Kuros is just in a different league for exactly the qualities you mention. LCDs aren't yet to the point where they are 'good' for IQ, although the LED backlit ones are certainly well on their way

A Kuros or any other plasma isn't going to compensate for whatever corners were cut on the console version with HDR, texture quality, post-processing or whatever else is contributing to the noticeable difference in color saturation and contrast. This is easily confirmed when using a higher quality source input, like connecting a PC to the same LCD or playing a Blu-Ray disc. Simply put, the deficiency is clearly the source and not the output in the case of the consoles.

It would have been cool if they could have gotten screenshots you could really compare, but that is another issue I'm not saying ports don't have some huge advantages on the PC, that actually only reinforces my point precisely. Why aren't PC exclusives throttling console exclusives?

If you can find some side-by-side comparisons, or even reviews/commentaries that give the edge to console visuals over the PC version, I'd love to see them. As for PC exclusives, well there's Crysis and I would say it throttles any console exclusives to-date. Again, the problem is there's so few technically outstanding PC exclusives nowadays, which forces us to compare multi-platform titles where again, the PC visuals dominates the console versions, without exception (none that I can think of anyways).

I'm not a PC or console guy, I'm a gamer. I own all the platforms as platform bigotry may be something some people think is cool, I just want to play the best games. I bring this thread up mainly as my PC SHOULD stomp anything my console is capable of into the ground and do it handily on a visual basis. That isn't happening.

Again, much of this is due to coding for the lowest common denominator and a shift of focus from the PC to the console and multi-platform releases. Those who choose to make PC exclusives have an even larger spectrum of target hardware, which makes it even more difficult to balance hardware requirements and visuals to maximize potential sales. I don't think there's any doubt Crysis' commercial succcess was greatly crippled by its steep hardware requirements and negative, but completely justified reputation of being a complete hardware pig.

I'm let down by this development for two different reasons. One is that the PC lost its' two main driving forces on the software side which has obviously hurt advancement. Second would be to date it seems like they really aren't up to speed on the console side. From what I've seen, the old school console stalwarts are still easily outperforming the new kids on the block when it comes to getting the most out of a piece of hardware. In a way, it makes me long for the days when Carmack and Sweeney ignored the consoles all together. Go back to dominating your market instead of swimming in mediocricity

Well I'd agree its a big blow to PC gaming to see them shift gears away from PC exclusivity, but unless I'm missing some major OpenGL or Q4 engine game in the last 3-4 years, I'd say Carmack has been a pretty quiet player in the industry as of late. Sweeney and Epic on the other hand, well I think they've learned the multi-platform game quite well. UE3.0 has been a huge hit on the consoles and consistently produces some of the best-looking titles on both the PC and consoles. I'd say its the important engine in the DX9.0c/10 generation, just as the Q3 engine dominated the DX8 generation and Source dominated the DX8.1/9 generation.

With the exeption of the Gears franchise, I'd say both have diminished from a standpoint of producing commercially successful in-house titles which largely contributed to their decline in the industry, but it looks like they're both clearly focused on winning with their new game engines on the next-gen consoles. As PC gamers, we can only hope that means they'll continue to scale well to PC hardware as we get more and more console ports and multi-platform releases.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Lighting model is basic in what you saw, although I would argue it is at least as complex as Crysis's demo What element do you think Crysis has an edge on for models or animations? That is actually one area where I thought KZ2 had some rather clear advantages. Crysis went a bit too far on the 'rag doll' IMO with people falling in very unrealistic ways, seems like their IK wasn't tuned right for a corpse Weapons models on KZ2 seem head and shoulders above Crysis, although I will certainly agree with you Crysis has clear edge in texture resolution. Aliasing I consider pretty much a non factor for this dicussion not that it isn't an entirely valid point- but that isn't due to graphics code at all and simply due to more hardware being thrown at base code. For the record I think Crysis does have a clear advantage in the water, although I think I already mentioned that. I don't just mean the top layer shader, but the physical interaction and how the water beads and rolls also.

The biggest difference I can see in those screenshots comes from the vast difference in view distance. Unless KZ2 at some points opens up and we get some expansive vistas, it seems to follow your typical "funneled" approach for console shooters. Lots of indoor areas, walls on 2 or even 3 sides, always pressing forward.

Honestly, comparing KZ2 and Crysis isn't even close in this regard, but its a common design trick to extract performance. Heavy use of Depth of Field/Field of View to blur or reduce details on the periphery are also heavily used. Fog, smoke along with heavy use of distant imposters, low-detail mock-ups, and structural facades are all common techniques to populate a scene while reducing hardware requirements.

And just to clarify, I don't mind it at all, I actually prefer it in many cases as it results in a more cinematic and immersive feel. Just saying you can't really compare it to something like Crysis where everything is detailed as far as you can see and fully interactive and rendered at any relative distance.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Not from the screen shots I have seen. Also, the internal frambuffer for KZ2 on the PS3 is probably something along the lines of 1280x720, while pretty much no one benchmarks or plays PC games at such a low resolution.

Play it for starters, next up though

12x10 Crysis numbers very high. That's no AA, no AF.

Nitro- I am not sure if your post was in jest or pure and profound ignorance, so I really don't know how to reply. I will touch on two points, one is that fixed hardware is faster by default-

Yes, the console is more efficient and makes better use of the hardware than the PC, but not to the extent that developers and console manufacturers what you to believe.

...I would probably be playing KZ2, but I don't have a PS3...

While you would think that the consoles are basically equivalent to a 6800 in a 512mb PC the reality is that all layers of inefficiency on the PC and the drivers mean that you really need twice the PC to get the equivalent play of the consoles. But when we have PCs that are 4 or 8 times as powerful as the latest consoles, it?ll help.

That's a quote from a guy that actually has a little bit of time writing code, maybe he's even a bit better then you at it.

[/quote]

That doesn't really cover the fact that we all know that the PS3 has the equivalent to a 7-series gpu, so while he is way more knowledgeable he doesn't appear to be above exaggeration. Sure, consoles are more efficient than PCs, but what do you expect JC (or any dev) to say who is targeting the console market?

Another example. Yes, Oblivion ran like crap on a 7800GTX at 1680x1050 (what I played it at back then), but an Xbox 360 runs Fallout 3 (same engine) with an internal frame buffer somewhere along the lines of 1280x720 just to keep up, and IIRC correctly Fallout 3 lacks any Anti-aliasing on the PS3.

This is the kind of approach that is bothering me about PC development- devs are doing nothing if the only way you improve visuals is by upping AA and AF. That is why I pointedly aimed my comments about software devs, I KNOW the hardware is there to do a LOT more- it is simply a lack of execution/talent on the software dev side of things. If anyone feels the need to justify PC devs because you can increase the res, AA or AF you are simply supporting the point that PC devs, at the moment, are sucking.

I already answered this. Consoles drive the market right now, so devs are coding for games that will run on the console. Read the entire JC interview you quoted, and you will see that he talks about that as well. Crytek is the exception to this, which is why Crysis is a PC exclusive.

You could look at this two ways (either is valid IMO): PC devs are sucking, or that there is no such thing as a "PC dev" anymore. They are now just "game devs" that write games that will run acceptably while providing the same content on a number of platforms.