PS4 World of Tanks Looks better Than PC Version

[Guest]

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!

Bf4 looks like utter garbage on ps3 and xbox 360. You must have poor eyesight. 

[Cainn]

Looks like this is starting to be the trend. Check this interview with Konami about Pro Evolution Soccer 2016. It's lead to many people on steam demanding refunds due to the video and screenshot previews on Steam showing PS4 graphics.

I think a full refund should be granted for sure.

 

6. Don't expect the PC version of PES to be as good as on PS4 or Xbox One this year
The PES series has typically had issues with PC ports that lacked features and looked worse too. This time, Bhatti tells NDTV Gadgets, the differences will be limited to visuals, and that, to a lesser degree than before.

He stated that the PC version would look better than the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions and even possess cutscenes that those two editions will not get. However, it will not look as good as the PS4 and Xbox One version.

"It won't reach PS4 and Xbox One level but the future of the series, we're looking at that right now," Bhatti said. "I know the fans really want it to be on par with the PS4 and Xbox One and we'll get there, we're aiming for that. It's one of those things where we have to I guess, being a smaller team than some of our competition, we have to prioritise sometimes because we don't have the resources and we'll definitely get there with the PC version, it'll be on par soon."

"Right now PES 16 PC is kind of its own thing. It's definitely not like the PS3 and X360 but I have to be honest, it's not the same as Xbox One and PS4."

[PinnIver]

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!

Is your pc from 1999? There is a huuuge difference in visual quality between the ps3 and pc version.

[DragonTamer1]

I can't wait for them to combine their three modules together, that MIGHT be enough to keep me interested in the game.

 

As of right now, WoT is not a game that I take seriously (as in I deliberatly kill myself in 85% of matches) so it makes no difference to me how it works.

 

Lets not forget that PC can also use mods.

[ltguy]

So a lot of pc users have weak hardware, some have incredible hardware. All console users have weak hardware. So we made the console one more demanding. Winning duh. Stop coding for non gaming pcs.

[Kurosaki Isshin]

30frames, high detail.

 

so in other words, unplayable.. but looks nice? nty.

[Chris_R.]

Is your pc from 1999? There is a huuuge difference in visual quality between the ps3 and pc version.

2012. Apparently it was a PS4

 

Bf4 looks like utter garbage on ps3 and xbox 360. You must have poor eyesight. 

Apparently it was a PS4

 

30FPS tho

Apparently it was a PS4

 

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.

There are still problems such as the 'fake reload' that they have been trying to fix, along with other movement and map placement bugs but that's another thread.

 

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

In 2012 - 2013 yes it did cost $1993.XX with case mods I have plenty of pics if u don't believe. Apparently it was a PS4.

 

 

 

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 :

-Snip-

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)-Snip-

Apparently it was a PS4. There are still problems such as the 'fake reload' that they have been trying to fix, along with other movement and map placement bugs but that's another thread.

 

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.

Apparently it was a PS4.

 

After texting my good buddy, he clarified it up. It was a PS4 with an HDMI connection on his 24" 1080 TV. All I remember was thinking and saying "Hey wow those graphics look pretty good!"

 

In my OP I never said the console graphics looked better than my Gaming PC, but they were almost as good.

 

 

I Apologize for the heat and confusion, as I've said I didn't realize it was actually a PS4 I seriously though it had a PS3 logo on it the PlayStation series look the same to me. {and for sub hijacking the thread}

 

 

 

For proof of system:

{Blurry because Droid Turbo camera = potato}

 

 

and yes in 2012-2013 all of these components {Some boxes not shown in that pic ex. fans and custom LED's} new cost something like $2 or $5 short of exactly $2,000

[HalGameGuru]

I'm not sure if the info has been relayed, but on performance and graphics in WoT.

 

PC:

Performance is not just a trial of hardware, the framerate and responsiveness are also at the mercy of the network connection. Any lag or packet loss WILL cause framerate issues. The game client waits for dialog from the server for continuing its rendering. Your turret being turned a different direction than you see it as, rubber banding, unresponsive controls. almost always from network connectivity issues.

On graphics the engine WoT uses is still very backwards compatible, it does not fully flex even DX11, it's only very meagerly multi-threaded, I believe only one or two things get shunted to a second thread, and they only just recently updated to a more recent version of the Big World engine, whose developer they bought, which is currently allowing them to make drastic improvements to graphics and performance, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

 

One thing to remember is that the PC and Console versions of WoT are not the same, they are built separately, by different teams, from the ground up. They share a lot of models and resources, and the underlying tech of the engines, but the engines themselves are not built the same. 

 

Console:

The console versions typically, not sure about PS4/XBone, have streamlined and more efficient engines, simplified or truncated maps and tank models, and are more easily optimized for hardware. The PS4/XBone versions I hope will see DX12 style graphic and performance improvements, where they WILL properly outperform the PC version in most use cases, if only to get the devs more interested in bringing the PC coding up to par.

 

 

You have to remember the largest bloc of players are europe/russia and asia. The average machine running WoT, this is info I recollect from last year though, is a P4/Athlon 64 Dual core box with a 6-8 year old GPU. They have to maintain playability on that hardware, their revenue model isn't retail, its freemium. They need masses playing and super accessibility.

[Clyne]

Yup, the current consoles have higher performance than the average gaming pc, so not a big surprise. Saying the consoles are holding back pc gaming is just ignorant.

GPU in the PS4 is a R9 270X(Pitcarin), just use something like Vulcan/Mantle to utilize the GPU more than CPU and it still performs decent.

[Dabombinable]

Ok, World of Tanks on PC has troubles running on a Phenom II N970 as the game is heavily singlethreaded. I don't see how the APU which are far shittier will be able to handle WOT-even the 360 has a more powerful CPU..

[Hunter259]

Ok, World of Tanks on PC has troubles running on a Phenom II N970 as the game is heavily singlethreaded. I don't see how the APU which are far shittier will be able to handle WOT-even the 360 has a more powerful CPU..

actually no. The PS3 has a stronger CPU but was a pain in the ass to code for. The 360 is slower than the APUs.

[Dabombinable]

actually no. The PS3 has a stronger CPU but was a pain in the ass to code for. The 360 is slower than the APUs.

The CPU are very similar-they are both based on IBM's PowerPC CPU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

[Hunter259]

The CPU are very similar-they are both based on IBM's PowerPC CPU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

Similar in that they are PowerPC chips. Other than that they are quite different.

[Dabombinable]

Similar in that they are PowerPC chips. Other than that they are quite different.

They are both still more powerful than the Jaguar chips used in the Xbone and Pisspoor.

[euniqe]

"Yeah let's make it awesome on PS4, we'll give it 60fps for a kickoff"

 

".....ohhhh ps4 is limited to 30fps :("

 

lol.

[HalGameGuru]

Ok, World of Tanks on PC has troubles running on a Phenom II N970 as the game is heavily singlethreaded. I don't see how the APU which are far shittier will be able to handle WOT-even the 360 has a more powerful CPU..

The PC version is still working off of much earlier work dedicated to older PCs, the game has been "out" since 2011 and in development for many years before.

 

The console versions are being built from the ground up, I would wager they will make use of DX12 type features and be much more thoroughly multithreaded to boot.

 

The fact it will run passably at 1080p on an older dual core CPU with a many generations old GPU says a lot. 

[spartaman64]

Yup, the current consoles have higher performance than the average gaming pc, so not a big surprise. Saying the consoles are holding back pc gaming is just ignorant.

no it doesnt sure it has better performance than the average web browsing pc but not gaming pc and there is something called graphics options 

[zacRupnow]

Apparently it was a PS4

 

There are still problems such as the 'fake reload' that they have been trying to fix, along with other movement and map placement bugs but that's another thread.

PS4 still runs at 30fps.

 

Fake Reload was finally fixed in the most recent patch, the majority of bugs left are spotting type problems such as seeing enemy names through smoke, problems like that don't effect my experience since I only like Hardcore mode which removes the mini-map and 3d spotting.

[Lazmarr]

I bet $3.50 they'll say that the textures/effects/etc that they use in the PS4 version wouldn't run that well on PC.

 

While conveniently leaving out how they are being lazy asshats and just don't wanna put any effort (least amount possible) into their PC version.

Perhaps, as well as being lazy, they were offered a large quantity of money by Sony, and with it a contract, to give the new effects to the PlayStation 4 only making it look more attractive than the competition?

[TorqueS]

Ok, World of Tanks on PC has troubles running on a Phenom II N970 as the game is heavily singlethreaded. I don't see how the APU which are far shittier will be able to handle WOT-even the 360 has a more powerful CPU..

They claim it's using more than one core...and they're right, sort of. I mean I see load on all my FX's cores, but mainly core 0 is around 70% and cores 1&3 are around 50%. The rest are... 10-15%(probably due to background tasks, like skype, etc.). There's no heavy multicore render, but it seems like the game is assigning tasks to more than one core.

 

I'll try one thing that came into my mind as I was writing this(dunno why I didn't do it before). I'll limit the core usage in task manager to 1 then test. If I see drops, I'll add a core and see when the game is running as it is now. 

I did notice a significant increase in performance during the last year for WoT. 

 

As for the main topic, I am not even surprised. WG thinks that business is more important than community and game balancing, but this worked for them since there was no competition. WarThunder failed hard on the gameplay side. 

We see Armored Warfare trying to compete with WoT and from my perspective, it looks good.(as in the whole game, not just graphics)

[Nishizumi]

Well of course it would look better. Most people running WoT have cardboard boxes as PCs.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yup, the current consoles have higher performance than the average gaming pc, so not a big surprise. Saying the consoles are holding back pc gaming is just ignorant.

Without a doubt consoles hold back pc gaming. Not just because they are weaker (because it has shown time and time again that dev choices directly reflect that), but perhaps more importantly the console first mentality of most triple a studios means consistently bad ports with terrible optimization.

So UNEQUIVOCALLY consoles hold pcs back. There literally cannot be an argument to the contrary.

[HalGameGuru]

Without a doubt consoles hold back pc gaming. Not just because they are weaker (because it has shown time and time again that dev choices directly reflect that), but perhaps more importantly the console first mentality of most triple a studios means consistently bad ports with terrible optimization.

So UNEQUIVOCALLY consoles hold pcs back. There literally cannot be an argument to the contrary.

You could say they USED to, not any longer, DX12 can be directly credited to the current gen consoles

[Notional]

no it doesnt sure it has better performance than the average web browsing pc but not gaming pc and there is something called graphics options 

Without a doubt consoles hold back pc gaming. Not just because they are weaker (because it has shown time and time again that dev choices directly reflect that), but perhaps more importantly the console first mentality of most triple a studios means consistently bad ports with terrible optimization.

So UNEQUIVOCALLY consoles hold pcs back. There literally cannot be an argument to the contrary.

 

To both of you: The average gaming computer is low end with an average of 1024MB of vram and low end GPU: (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/)

 

Just look at texture quality before the current generation of consoles launched; they were abysmal, and this includes PC exclusive titles. When the current console gen launched, you saw countless 770 users shit themselves, because their GPU's became completely vram starved and had to revert to medium textures. These consoles are mid to low-high end in performance. Of the total pc gaming market, only a tiny niche has 980ti's and other ultra high end cards.

 

So yeah, the general quality push comes from consoles, not pc's. In fact these new consoles being PC based means that PC's benefit a lot, especially thanks to AMD that helped the entire pc industry with low level API's like DX12 and Vulkan, thanks to them getting the contracts to put GCN in all consoles.

[RagnarokDel]

I dont know if that's the same thing but you can already download HD textures on PC.