Discussion: besides "looks", currently pc gaming is the same as console

[Gdourado]

I also read sometime ago that current games are different from older games. 

Something like older games being developed with high and ultra settings in mind and looking like garbage when settings where lowered. 

But modern games bering developed around low and medium settings and just be allowed to scale higher as hardware power available increases. 

That is why modern games are playable at low settings without looking like trash. 

 

That also kind of validates what I meant about games being developed with the consoles in mind. 

 

I was playing the division on ps4. 

Never played the game on pc, but I found the visuals pretty good, good ambient, effects models, weather effects and all. 

 

The only thing I noticed was some slow loading textures that it probably won't happen on the pc. 

 

But If that is low settings, pretty impressive to me. 

[Frankenburger]

29 minutes ago, App4that said:

Yes, ACO hits full fat 4k with the Xbox One. It uses dynamic resolution, that's to keep the framerate stable. 

 

You must have caught my post before the edit.

 

I linked to an article that goes into detail of how dynamic resolution in ACO works on the Xbone X.

 

Eurogamer didn't see the resolution go beyond 2016p, and saw it go as low as 1656p on the Xbone X. Comparing a PC with a static resolution of 2160p to a console version with a dynamic resolution of 1656p to 2016p is not apples to apples.

 

If PC games had dynamic resolution as an option, we'd be seeing a lot more "4k capable" low end to medium range PCs. But that's neither here nor there.

[App4that]

Just now, Frankenburger said:

You must have caught my post before the edit.

 

I linked to an article that goes into detail of how dynamic resolution in ACO works on the Xbone X.

 

Eurogamer didn't see the resolution go beyond 2016p, and saw it go as low as 1656p on the Xbone X. Comparing a PC with a static resolution of 2160p to a console version with a dynamic resolution of 1656p to 2016p is not apples to apples.

 

If PC games had dynamic resolution as an option, we'd be seeing a lot more "4k capable" low end to medium range PCs. But that's neither here nor there.

You can run AC Origins at a static 4k at high settings using a PC built from new parts for 500 dollars? 

 

Can we not? 

[Frankenburger]

Just now, App4that said:

You can run AC Origins at a static 4k at high settings using a PC built from new parts for 500 dollars? 

That's not the point.

 

The point is you can't compare static 2160p to variable "4k".

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

That's not the point.

 

The point is you can't compare static 2160p to variable "4k".

Can you say Nvidia is faster than Radeon? Intel faster than AMD? Because Nvidia and Intels flagships beat AMD's in gaming?

 

No... You compare price points. Why we don't compare a 2600X to a 8700k.

 

Even with at 1000 dollars (roughly) the One X hangs with a PC. You have to go looking for differences. Going past double the price to show differences, is kinda anoying and wouldn't be tolerated if the subject was PC. 

[Frankenburger]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

Even with at 1000 dollars (roughly) the One X hangs with a PC.

Maybe in theory, but not in practice.

 

There's only 1 of 2 ways we can make that determination. First is to give PC games dynamic resolution. Second is to give Xbone X games a static resolution. Either one of these two methods will allow us to accurately compare consoles to PCs in the 4k space. But because neither is currently possible, anything said in regards to how the two platforms compare in the 4k space is hearsay.

[App4that]

10 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Maybe in theory, but not in practice.

 

There's only 1 of 2 ways we can make that determination. First is to give PC games dynamic resolution. Second is to give Xbone X games a static resolution. Either one of these two methods will allow us to accurately compare consoles to PCs in the 4k space. But because neither is currently possible, anything said in regards to how the two platforms compare in the 4k space is hearsay.

PC has dynamic resolution in games, like Forza 7. 

 

You're fixating on the wrong thing. Can you tell the difference, without the help of magnification and pixel counting? 

[Frankenburger]

Just now, App4that said:

Can you tell the difference, without the help of magnification and pixel counting? 

Me personally?

 

Yes.

 

I can't speak on behalf of others though.

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Me personally?

 

Yes.

 

I can't speak on behalf of others though.

Double, dog, dare you. (you want to use Xbone, I can be childish too)

 

The fact developers can use dynamic resolution and checkerboard rendering on console IS a difference, the point of the topic. Developers are starting to offer them on PC, but it's a hard sell. You can't build a 500 dollar PC that can run AC Origin at anything close to where the One X can run it, dynamic resolution or not. Since most PCs are used with 1080p monitors dynamic resolution really doesn't fit. Since 4k television adoption is going wild it does fit on the console side. 

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

You can't build a 500 dollar PC that can run AC Origin at anything close to where the One X can run it

I never said anything to the contrary. I don't know why you're so fixated on debunking the "$500 PC can match an XboneX" myth. You're preaching to the choir.

[App4that]

9 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I never said anything to the contrary. I don't know why you're so fixated on debunking the "$500 PC can match an XboneX" myth. You're preaching to the choir.

You literaly have been, or at least my interpretation of what you've wrote is. 

 

Why would developers not use dynamic resolution that while within 10% scaling has no impact on image quality? I notice when it drops below 20%, not really a bad thing and you have to watch for it, but it's there. I notice checkerboard artifacts way easier. 

 

I just replaced the 980ti in my HTPC with a 1080 (VR reasons). The 1080 costs 80 bucks more than I spent on my One X. First thing I did was throw Forza 7 in, maxed at 4k. Looks awesome, but not that much better than the One X. You HAVE to bring price into the equation. 

[Frankenburger]

Just now, App4that said:

You literaly have been, or at least my interpretation of what you've wrote is. 

 

I'm sorry you feel this way.

 

All I've been saying is that Digital Foundry videos are not representative of raw gameplay due to compression, that console games typically don't match PC games on high, and that you can't fairly compare a dynamic resolution to a static resolution. All three of these points are objectively true. Nowhere in any of my earlier posts did I mention the value proposition of consoles or cost of PC's capable of running games at high or comparable settings.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I'm sorry you feel this way.

 

All I've been saying is that Digital Foundry videos are not representative of raw gameplay due to compression, that console games typically don't match PC games on high, and that you can't fairly compare a dynamic resolution to a static resolution. All three of these points are objectively true. Nowhere in any of my earlier posts did I mention the value proposition of consoles or cost of PC's capable of running games at high or comparable settings.

You're right that due to compression you can't independently judge, is that what you meant? I stand behind Digital Foundry's findings though, which were objective and evidence was offered to support their findings.

 

Base consoles have historically run games at medium or lower settings, that's changing. Xbox One X enhanced titles run at a mix of high settings and even ultra. 

 

Comparing dynamic resolution to static is the point of the topic. A still frame taken from a multi platform title will show largely the same image quality. In motion is where the differences pop up. So I guess you could rephrase the question to is static resolution worth the cost on PC?

[Frankenburger]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

Xbox One X enhanced titles run at a mix of high settings and even ultra

I guess it depends on the game.

 

 

Look at the difference in distant objects and shadows between the XboneX and PC (which is something I've commented on a couple times already). You'll notice an immediate difference, especially at 3:32 and 6:02.

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

So I guess you could rephrase the question to is static resolution worth the cost on PC?

That's subjective. I know people who prefer running at native resolution 100% of the time, while there are others out there that prefer running at 60 FPS 100% of the time.

[App4that]

4 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I guess it depends on the game.

 

 

Look at the difference in distant objects and shadows between the XboneX and PC (which is something I've commented on a couple times already). You'll notice an immediate difference, especially at 3:32 and 6:02.

That's subjective. I know people who prefer running at native resolution 100% of the time, while there are others out there that prefer running at 60 FPS 100% of the time.

The conversation is what does that difference mean though? You could find larger differences between a 580 equiped PC and 1080ti equiped PC.

 

It's highly subjective. I own both, I use both. At no time do I say "man this is better than that other platform" same as I wouldn't driving a truck verses a sports car. Some people chose one, some own both. 

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

The conversation is what does that difference mean though?

It just goes back to what I was saying earlier - most console multiplatform titles run at settings more akin to medium settings than high.

 

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

It's highly subjective. I own both, I use both. At no time do I say "man this is better than that other platform"

It also depends on the game. Some games don't have that much disparity in visual quality between console and PC, ignoring frame rate. Some games, however, have a pretty large disparity.

 

ACO is one game that I don't feel bothered by the difference in IQ when playing on console, which is saying something since I played it on the PS4 Pro. However, Monster Hunter World for PC is one game I cannot wait to get my hands on, simply because of the horrible draw distance, the muddy vasoline-like motion blur, and the horrible aliasing.

[App4that]

8 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

It just goes back to what I was saying earlier - most console multiplatform titles run at settings more akin to medium settings than high.

 

It also depends on the game. Some games don't have that much disparity in visual quality between console and PC, ignoring frame rate. Some games, however, have a pretty large disparity.

 

ACO is one game that I don't feel bothered by the difference in IQ when playing on console, which is saying something since I played it on the PS4 Pro. However, Monster Hunter World for PC is one game I cannot wait to get my hands on, simply because of the horrible draw distance, the muddy vasoline-like motion blur, and the horrible aliasing.

FFXV is another. Though worth noting both Monster Hunter and FFXV made PC users wait for those improvements. I wouldn't be shocked to see a trend in the future where they go back and apply those improvements on the console side as the line between console and PC hardware wise continues to blur. 

[Zeitec]

8 hours ago, App4that said:

You know what is a useful comparison tool? Literally using the same display for both, like I do. As in every modern platform available. 

 

Because something is marketed, does not make it a gimmick. The marketing of the feature having more use to the person doing the marketing, than the feature having usefulness to the person that buys the product, is what makes it a gimmick.

 

CD Project Red updated The Witcher 3 to HDR support because of that usefulness to the customer, because they care about their product and the people playing their games.

 

You can have your own opinion on the quality of console content. Calling HDR a gimmick lowers the quality of your argument and puts those arguing against console in a bad light. Just like those arguing against PC that say you can't see past 30fps do.

 

The issue is you confuse gimmick, with niche.

I never mentioned HDR literally ever. I'm not sure if you're projecting super hard or if you're responding to the wrong person, but you're not arguing against me. Consoles have lower draw distance, lower resolution, worse anti-aliasing (if any), worse lighting, and worse detail settings. I mean this is true for the PS4 and Xbox One as those are the consoles I have owned. From what I hear about the PS4 Pro and especially the XBox One X, the framerates are a lot more consistent and the higher resolution helps a lot, so those may be better options. 

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, Zeitec said:

I never mentioned HDR literally ever. I'm not sure if you're projecting super hard or if you're responding to the wrong person, but you're not arguing against me. Consoles have lower draw distance, lower resolution, worse anti-aliasing (if any), worse lighting, and worse detail settings. I mean this is true for the PS4 and Xbox One as those are the consoles I have owned. From what I hear about the PS4 Pro and especially the XBox One X, the framerates are a lot more consistent and the higher resolution helps a lot, so those may be better options. 

You said YouTube isn't a usefull comparison tool, only Digital Foundry doesn't just show you side by side comparisons like Candyland, they talk about the differences.

 

We've beaten the myth that consoles run at low or even medium settings to deaaaaaath. We're talking about the One X here, which doesn't, it runs at high to ultra settings. (outside the garbage that is PUBG)

[Sniperfox47]

8 hours ago, App4that said:

We've beaten the myth that consoles run at low or even medium settings to deaaaaaath. We're talking about the One X here, which doesn't, it runs at high to ultra settings. (outside the garbage that is PUBG)

Except as pointed out already that varies *wildly* between games, even on the XboxOneX.

 

This is a conversation about how PC gaming and Console gaming are different right? So here it is:

 

Console gaming is about a cheap and accessible gaming experience that suits the lowest common denominator. It's about pulling market share of as many people as possible and making gaming accessible. Consoles don't function at "medium" or "high" because the graphics are tailored and preset to what most people will find acceptable. Typically this winds up turning off a lot of the expensive options that don't show up in obvious places (see SSAO, Tesselated hair, MSAA, and other similarly expensive shaders) and using more of dynamic draw distances and other performance saving measures.

 

PC gaming is about choice. It's about the ability to choose whether to get a more expensive system that can do more, or a less expensive system that can save you a few bucks but still be used for school. It's about the freedom to download indie games from small developers or games that may not have been approved by the company running the store (see the butchered version of Agony releasing on console). It's about the choice to tweak individual parts of a games render quality, even if those things may hurt your gameplay experience. It's about the freedom to pick resolution, vs frame rate, vs quality and adjust between those things based on your preference.

 

Again, you're talking two *very* different market segments. I don't know why the OP is trying to present it as "besides 'looks', currently pc gaming is the same as console" because 'looks' is about the only way they're even a little similar, and even that is very different in how it's presented.

[Mira Yurizaki]

14 hours ago, Gdourado said:

I also read sometime ago that current games are different from older games. 

Something like older games being developed with high and ultra settings in mind and looking like garbage when settings where lowered. 

But modern games bering developed around low and medium settings and just be allowed to scale higher as hardware power available increases. 

That is why modern games are playable at low settings without looking like trash. 

 

That also kind of validates what I meant about games being developed with the consoles in mind. 

 

I was playing the division on ps4. 

Never played the game on pc, but I found the visuals pretty good, good ambient, effects models, weather effects and all. 

 

The only thing I noticed was some slow loading textures that it probably won't happen on the pc. 

 

But If that is low settings, pretty impressive to me. 

Modern games can still look like garbage when the settings are lowered:

 

 

However the thing is with modern graphics today is that polygonal counts are no longer a factor unlike 15-20 years ago. Similarly advancements in texture technology, if you will, stopped really being a thing after mid-2000s. By that point we've had everything we practically needed to make convincing surfaces. A lot of graphical quality in modern games have to do with the effects, mostly lighting. And a lot of them tend to be rather subtle (though in CoD's case, the culmination of them actually results in a really noticeable quality difference).

 

It also helps that the art direction in modern games changed to fit reality rather than what the artists think looks good. I'd argue this preserves the apparent quality better or at the very least, hides defects better.

 

Basically, today, graphical quality hasn't really improved by leaps and bounds as it did back in the early days of 3D games.

[App4that]

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Except as pointed out already that varies *wildly* between games, even on the XboxOneX.

 

This is a conversation about how PC gaming and Console gaming are different right? So here it is:

 

Console gaming is about a cheap and accessible gaming experience that suits the lowest common denominator. It's about pulling market share of as many people as possible and making gaming accessible. Consoles don't function at "medium" or "high" because the graphics are tailored and preset to what most people will find acceptable. Typically this winds up turning off a lot of the expensive options that don't show up in obvious places (see SSAO, Tesselated hair, MSAA, and other similarly expensive shaders) and using more of dynamic draw distances and other performance saving measures.

 

PC gaming is about choice. It's about the ability to choose whether to get a more expensive system that can do more, or a less expensive system that can save you a few bucks but still be used for school. It's about the freedom to download indie games from small developers or games that may not have been approved by the company running the store (see the butchered version of Agony releasing on console). It's about the choice to tweak individual parts of a games render quality, even if those things may hurt your gameplay experience. It's about the freedom to pick resolution, vs frame rate, vs quality and adjust between those things based on your preference.

 

Again, you're talking two *very* different market segments. I don't know why the OP is trying to present it as "besides 'looks', currently pc gaming is the same as console" because 'looks' is about the only way they're even a little similar, and even that is very different in how it's presented.

Do you know why PC gamers are seen as elitists? You. 

 

Lowest common denominator. Dude, gtfo

[kokakolia]

On 2018-05-07 at 2:04 AM, Eaglerino said:

We seem to be heading that way. You can't buy a $400 PC that is as capable as an Xbox One X. All they need to do is add official support for keyboard and mouse and get rid of the crappy Xbox live payment and it'd be hard to convince any of my friends to get a PC anymore

If the RAM prices were lower, I’d say that you definitely can! Just look at this example: 

 

- CPU $80 (I’m thinking of an Intel Pentium)

- Case $30 (some random Rosewill case on sale)

- PSU $40 (EVGA 430W)

- Motherboard $70

- 8GB RAM $40 (back in 2015)

- GPU $100 (something like a GTX 1050)

- Windows $20 (from Kinguin)

 

Total: $380

 

 

[App4that]

49 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

If the RAM prices were lower, I’d say that you definitely can! Just look at this example: 

 

- CPU $80 (I’m thinking of an Intel Pentium)

- Case $30 (some random Rosewill case on sale)

- PSU $40 (EVGA 430W)

- Motherboard $70

- 8GB RAM $40 (back in 2015)

- GPU $100 (something like a GTX 1050)

- Windows $20 (from Kinguin)

 

Total: $380

 

 

That's no where near a Xbox One X LOL, you need at least a 580 or 1060. 

[airdeano]

ok peeps, we getting to that console vs PC discussion that is verbotten, eh..

i think the topic is 'besides looks currently, pc gaming is the same as a console'.. discuss.