PS4 World of Tanks Looks better Than PC Version

[Guest Kloaked]

wat ev m8 u win an online discussion that carries no significance in the real world. Must be feelin' proud that u "Rekt" someone today

 

And there it is. Yes, I do feed off of winning arguments. Totes. Gonna check the box that says "Go rekt Chris R. on the internet" as I've accomplished that.

 

In all seriousness, this wouldn't have been so bad if you either clarified what you were saying, just admitted that you don't actually have that PC in your profile, or don't actually pay attention to how games actually look across platforms.

 

I don't care which one it is, or if it's a combination of any of them, or none of them. I mainly responded because I'm tired of people giving companies shit when it's undeserved. If you're going to shit on a company, have a proper reason for it. This thread is about graphical quality, not server lag or hit box detection.

[TwistedDictator]

Well that just fixes everything then.

 

Not really but I know that frame rate is more important than graphical fidelity.

 

I agree. I rather have 60fps then a slight improvement in graphics.

[Trik'Stari]

I agree. I rather have 60fps then a slight improvement in graphics.

Not to mention triple monitor surround and better controls.

[NeatSquidYT]

Friend brought over PS3 and played bf4 on it. Looks almost as good as my $2,000 Gaming PC. Thanks EA/Dice! I love when consoles get better quality games!

wat. I used to have BF4 on PS4 and the PC version looks A LOT better to me.

[Shakaza]

As a hardcore PC gamer since the end of the 90s, consoles seem more and more appealing just because they can run stuff like this for a mere 350-400$ while I gotta spend that much on a GPU alone and still not get stable 60fps in some games. While on the other hand, 30fps on WoT doesn't sound so bad considering that the freaking game goes from 80fps to 10fps in milliseconds, it's just amazing how easily they fuck up games on the PC. I swear, if consoles had good mouse and keyboard control, I would freaking bail this instant...

 

The Witcher 3 and other new titles don't look bad at all on the PS4 and Xbox One. Sure, they look better on PC, but is it worth it is what I'm saying?

Oh boy, I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this one on a PC forum

Well, it's a legitimate opinion, so...

[Guest Kloaked]

The Witcher 3 and other new titles don't look bad at all on the PS4 and Xbox One. Sure, they look better on PC, but is it worth it is what I'm saying?

Oh boy, I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this one on a PC forum

 

It's worth it for the people who want it, which is the whole thing.

 

If someone hates on you for being logical about this, then we'll know who the elitists are.

[Humbug]

Well the PC version came out some time back correct? And th new Gen console version is coming out in the future; not so surprising that it looks better being a new game. Although it would be good if they can port the improvements over...

[Guest Kloaked]

Well the PC version came out some time back correct? And th new Gen console version is coming out in the future; not so surprising that it looks better being a new game. Although it would be good if they can port the improvements over...

 

It's not a new game.

[Humbug]

It's not a new game.

The ps4 version? It's only coming in 2016.

[Guest Kloaked]

The ps4 version? It's only coming in 2016.

 

It's not a new game.

 

They're doing a "HD edition" more or less.

[Humbug]

It's not a new game.

They're doing a "HD edition" more or less.

Ok. My point was that it's not surprising that a build which is getting released many years after the PC version looks better than the PC version. If the roles were reversed and the game was already out on PS4 and scheduled to come out on PC a few years later you can bet that the PC (newer) version would look better. That's how it works unless we are talking about a previous Gen console (ps3 / Xbox 360) which is so far behind technically that it doesn't matter.

[Guest Kloaked]

Ok. My point was that it's not surprising that a build which is getting released many years after the PC version looks better than the PC version. If the roles were reversed and the game was already out on PS4 and scheduled to come out on PC a few years later you can bet that the PC (newer) version would look better. That's how it works unless we are talking about a previous Gen console (ps3 / Xbox 360) which is so far behind technically that it doesn't matter.

 

In a perfect reverse yes that would be the case, but this company wouldn't do such a thing should the situation be reversed. What would happen is the game would be ported to PC but be a god awful PC port, regardless of how it looks.

 

Point in all this is that they care less about PC now that they know about the console money.

[ACatWithThumbs]

 

Because it shows how poorly the port to PC is and how much more time was spent optimizing the game for consoles then the PC. Which is what this entire thread is all about if you read the title. If you actually read the title, then you would have seen and understand what I am talking about rather than trying to hate on my gaming pc.

No it's not the console version was just as bad.
First the game had crash issues on all platforms as well as a horrible netcode and tons of bugs in the first few months.
Second that has nothing to do with the port as PC is the lead platform for Battlefield and it was ported to consoles from PC the game was simply not finished yet but the performance was great the game even had day one DX11.1 support and got Mantle after a few months.
And third you first statement is absolutely ridiculous the Ps3 version of Battlefield 4 and 3 run horrible at 640p/24-30fps/DX9 with smaller maps and 24 players.
You can't even turn the settings that much down to get the horrible level of the ps3 version and I know it I played 280h in Battlefield 3 on ps3 which is why I switched to PC gaming in 2012.
This was my experience of Battlefield 3 launch on Ps3 :

And I haven't had such good developer interaction for any game so far I personally posted about the wind physics issue on CTE and a DICE developer answered me that he is going to look into it and that it should only be a check box in the engine and they actually fixed it.(Sadly they haven't fixed the environment detail settings which only goes to Ultra if you start the game on Ultra and set that setting to medium mid game)

[Misanthrope]

I'm glad I don't own this shit, now I never will.

[juretrn]

Wargaming? Change?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Newsflash: arty is getting nerfed!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH   NO

Also, they probably will update PC graphics... over the course of 10 or so patches. 

But let's be fair here, the HD models look pretty sweet.

[UnknownEngineer]

 

Newsflash: arty is getting nerfed!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH   NO

Also, they probably will update PC graphics... over the course of 10 or so patches. 

But let's be fair here, the HD models look pretty sweet.

 

Hey it's only going to be 6+ months for the graphics to come then! hurray!

This is how arty will be fixed.

Artillerys reload times will be quadrupled across the board, also accuracy is reduced by 50% to add more of that lovely RNG. But to not upset arty players the damage per shot is now multiplied tenfold across the board.

 

/s

 

TBH I don't even really know which tanks have the HD model, if they are to make the game look better they need to add details to the environment and such. Then again I have always played with the HD version, I haven't gotten a comparison.

 

How many tanks even have an HD model ATM?

[juretrn]

Hey it's only going to be 6+ months for the graphics to come then! hurray!

This is how arty will be fixed.

 

 

 

/s

 

TBH I don't even really know which tanks have the HD model, if they are to make the game look better they need to add details to the environment and such. Then again I have always played with the HD version, I haven't gotten a comparison.

 

How many tanks even have an HD model ATM?

I dunno, but there's a list on the WoT forums somewhere.

[kuddlesworth9419]

That's not it.

New console version is the best version of the game = more people interested in the game = more users = more money for what is used

New upgraded graphics on PC = development costs = no change in user amount = no money gained

 

That's the very short version of it.

 

The better the console version of the game is the more people they will get on the console, unless there is a massive outrage there will be no better graphics on the PC version.

You create good will in consumers if you give people stuff for free. Better consumer will means more people pay more money. You can see it that way to.

[Guest Kloaked]

I'm glad I don't own this shit, now I never will.

 

Well it's a free to play game.

 

Only thing you'll lose is your time, unless you actually spend money on their paid content.

[niofalpha]

-snip-

There's no way that's a 2000$ Rig...

[zacRupnow]

Do you even play the Battlefield series? Then you would know that BF4 has had the worst PC port of all time....especially considering console games ACTUALLY WORKED upon release date. The PC version of BF4 Didn't even work upon launch..............................So there is my case.

 

If you click my name, you can see my Gaming PC's specs.

Battlefield 3/4 are not ports to PC, DICE has a full team of PC devs and a small team for maintaining the console versions and adapting the patches from the main development team to be specific to each console. A port is a game like Arkham Knight where there is a full staff development team of 100 people who outsourced the PC version to a small group of 5 people with no experience. And while the launch of BF4 was awful it had no effect on the graphics were and still are vastly superior on PC, and the game runs extremely well now and has been doing so since the Spring Patch.

[juretrn]

Well it's a free to play game.

 

Only thing you'll lose is your time, unless you actually spend money on their paid content.

That is so expensive in WoT... they want 40 € for a premium tank, and 1 year of premium account for 80 €...

[Inkz]

So they say because many play with a low to mid end pc, why don't they just have system presets like every other game in existence that does not punish the higher end ones and would still be fine where you could turn it down for a lower system? Even a mid-grade system is as good as a PS4.

[Swndlr]

Friend brought over PS3 and played bf4 on it. Looks almost as good as my $2,000 Gaming PC. Thanks EA/Dice! I love when consoles get better quality games!

30FPS tho

[UnknownEngineer]

So they say because many play with a low to mid end pc, why don't they just have system presets like every other game in existence that does not punish the higher end ones and would still be fine where you could turn it down for a lower system? Even a mid-grade system is as good as a PS4.

They do, the HD textures are optional. That's all that they have to work with ATM, all other resources are shared on low and high end systems.

 

The thing is, for the game to look as good as it does on PS4/Xbone they would have to rework the entire engine, think for a second, the entire engine. For a game that has to be kept up to date that's a tall order. Not to even mention that the NEW engine basically has to run on systems using DDR... Ok maybe not that but DDR2 systems definitely,  WG does have the money, they basically have the rights to print cash, but it is too much money for something that will not directly get them more money.