Will this game on pc look alot better then the ps3 version?

#71LordPonchoPosted 9/15/2012 8:07:36 PM
jmyoda10 posted...
GodXII posted...
I saw IGN interview with Randy Pitchford. He loves PS3, he is PS3 fanboy and he has many PS3 fanboys in Gearbox. Yes PS3 is a lead platform. Go and watch it on youtube.


Proof or garbage. I'm not watching hours upon hour of BL2 vids (again) to prove/debunk this.


Whether he's trolling or not, Pitchford's favorite console wouldn't determine the lead platform.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#72jmyoda10Posted 9/15/2012 8:12:28 PM
LordPoncho posted...
Whether he's trolling or not, Pitchford's favorite console wouldn't determine the lead platform.


I did see a video where he wanted it to be on the Vita, but he said that Sony would have to do a good chunk of the work on that. He made a squee-type movement at the idea. Mr. Pitchford is probably the biggest BL fanboy out there, in fact he's probably played BL2 more than anyone else in the world at this point.
---
Why are so many people in personal ads looking for D&D free? What's wrong with a little tabletop roleplaying?
#73generalghostPosted 9/15/2012 8:26:00 PM
Unless you have a very outdated Rig there is no way the Ps3 or xbox for that matter will out perform the PC version.
---
http://www.makesocomhd.com//index.php
PSN-GeneralGhost
#74LordPonchoPosted 9/15/2012 9:12:01 PM
jmyoda10 posted...
LordPoncho posted...
Whether he's trolling or not, Pitchford's favorite console wouldn't determine the lead platform.


I did see a video where he wanted it to be on the Vita, but he said that Sony would have to do a good chunk of the work on that. He made a squee-type movement at the idea. Mr. Pitchford is probably the biggest BL fanboy out there, in fact he's probably played BL2 more than anyone else in the world at this point.


He's admitted to liking the technology in the Vita. So have several Devs. They just keep away due to dismal sales.
---
"lol der was a shdow on my carpet but ti looked like a stane and tried to clen it up but ti was a shadoow" -Ghost4800
#75SoulTrapperPosted 9/16/2012 4:00:25 AM
Ssj7Crono posted...

I'm no expert in GPU/video cards but according to the following article:

"According to a report in New Scientist, modern PC graphics cards are 24 times more powerful than the one used in the Xbox 360.

That's according to Nvidia engineer Simon Green, whose GeForce GTX 680 card is reportedly the card powering Epic's recent demonstrations of their Unreal Engine 4."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/353860/pc-graphics-now-24-times-more-powerful-than-the-xbox-360/


Yeah, quite possible. I was using benchmark data to compare, so it wasn't exactly 100% accurate out of fear of exaggerating, but apparently I was underestimating it.

Good article, thanks.
---
PSN: El_Coon
#76MarikhenPosted 9/16/2012 4:18:15 AM
SoulTrapper posted...
There's a reason Crysis, which was PC only, is still the benchmark when it comes to graphics.


Yes, it's because Crysis' open world nature is absolutely brutal when it comes to performance. It's not because the graphics look good, it's because compared to games of equal graphical quality Crysis punishes hardware more due to rendering significantly more than what you see.

SoulTrapper posted...
Your logical comparison makes no sense once you throw in the fact that consoles are 6 year old PCs, so that any game that gets developed for consoles first won't have the same quality as if the games would be developed for PC separately.


Why? You seem to be assuming that developers are utterly incapable of spending effort to bring a PC port of a console game up to "PC standards."

SoulTrapper posted...
That's not true, for example, the average FPS of console games is never higher then 30, while PC games can go much higher and should average at 60fps if it's not a console port.


Yet Dead Space and Borderlands are both "console ports" and can average 60 FPS quite easily, though in Dead Space's case you have to disable the internal v-synch which locks it to 30 FPS. On the other hand World of Warcraft can, and will, cap your frame rate at 30 FPS if it dips below 50-55 with v-synch enabled while using the Wrath client and Diablo 2 caps your frame rate at 24 FPS when you play in SP mode. Frame rate cap doesn't seem like a good measure of anything to me.

Incidentally, why should PC games average 60 FPS? Not everyone runs top of the line hardware or changes settings to bring their minimum frame rate to 60 FPS.

SoulTrapper posted...
The reason for those bad textures was that it was a console port, if it was developed separately for PC, it wouldn't have had those issues.


The only way Rage wouldn't have had texture quality issues would be if id either made separate textures for those things, didn't use their "supertexture" thing at all, or released a game that took 30 or more DVDs to install because of the massive amount of storage required for the high-quality textures. Rage is one of the shortest games id's released in the last decade, possibly one of the shortest FPS titles I've played in the last decade, and it still took 23gb of HD space.

It has little to do with being a port and everything to do with Rage really being a tech demo and not a game.

SoulTrapper posted...
Give me one example where the game didn't suffer from being a console port in one way or the other.


Were it not for the fact that PC gamers expect more than "identical to console version" out of PC games I'd cite Dark Souls, but player expectations, and not developer failure, are most definitely making that game "suffer from being a console port in one way or the other."

Frankly that human element will likely always make your request extremely difficult to outright impossible to fulfill. When public opinion is a factor just about anything can "suffer."
---
Stop complaining. I could have done this more painfully. - Dryad from Sacred 2.
#77SoulTrapperPosted 9/16/2012 5:25:56 AM
Marikhen posted...

Yes, it's because Crysis' open world nature is absolutely brutal when it comes to performance. It's not because the graphics look good, it's because compared to games of equal graphical quality Crysis punishes hardware more due to rendering significantly more than what you see.


Yes, and this is something that wasn't done in Crysis 2 to accommodate consoles. It's why Crysis 2 is a corridor shooter instead of an open world.
What's your point?
Funny how you ignore the Witcher 2 thing.



Why? You seem to be assuming that developers are utterly incapable of spending effort to bring a PC port of a console game up to "PC standards."


It's impossible. You can't bring a game made for consoles and then ported to PC up to standards that are 24 times higher.
You can make it so that it looks better and add features, but a console port will never be the same as a game developed for PC itself.



Yet Dead Space and Borderlands are both "console ports" and can average 60 FPS quite easily, though in Dead Space's case you have to disable the internal v-synch which locks it to 30 FPS. On the other hand World of Warcraft can, and will, cap your frame rate at 30 FPS if it dips below 50-55 with v-synch enabled while using the Wrath client and Diablo 2 caps your frame rate at 24 FPS when you play in SP mode. Frame rate cap doesn't seem like a good measure of anything to me.

Incidentally, why should PC games average 60 FPS? Not everyone runs top of the line hardware or changes settings to bring their minimum frame rate to 60 FPS.


I'm not saying all console ports are badly done, stop with the straw man stuff.
What I'm saying is that most of the time, the ports are badly done.
And a console port will never be as good as good as a game developed for the actual PC.
I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this fact.

You give one example of a well done port (dead space) but there are tons of examples where it isn't that well done.
You're comparing apples and oranges with the WoW thing. It's a 7 year old MMO, not a 2 year old FPS.

And you don't need top of the line hardware to run games at 60FPS, it's standard for PC games and has been for years. The only games that suffer in this are console ports.



Rage is one of the shortest games id's released in the last decade, possibly one of the shortest FPS titles I've played in the last decade, and it still took 23gb of HD space.

It has little to do with being a port and everything to do with Rage really being a tech demo and not a game.


The only way it wouldn't have had those issues is if it would have been made for the PC to begin with and wasn't a console port.
The game had pop-in, bad textures and all that crap because consoles couldn't possibly render all of it.
And the 23gb was to stop pirating, same thing with Max Payne3 and other recent games.
It's the new form of DRM





Were it not for the fact that PC gamers expect more than "identical to console version" out of PC games I'd cite Dark Souls, but player expectations, and not developer failure, are most definitely making that game "suffer from being a console port in one way or the other."
Frankly that human element will likely always make your request extremely difficult to outright impossible to fulfill. When public opinion is a factor just about anything can "suffer."


Of course PC gamers expect more, if you go out and buy a new car, you expect to buy a recent model, not a 6 year old one.

If developers like CDProjektRED can do it on half the budget bigger game companies do, why wouldn't the big companies be able to do it?
---
PSN: El_Coon
#78dexter1984Posted 9/16/2012 5:50:01 AM
I'm just going to leave this here.

Fan:
Thanks Gearbox for taking the time to do a f'king PC port.

Randy Pitchford (President, CEO, and co-founder of Gearbox Software):
"Thank you, I'm going to correct you on your comment. The PC version of Borderlands 2 is not a port. It's the game."
#79dexter1984Posted 9/16/2012 5:53:27 AM
SoulTrapper posted...

The only way it wouldn't have had those issues is if it would have been made for the PC to begin with and wasn't a console port.
The game had pop-in, bad textures and all that crap because consoles couldn't possibly render all of it.
And the 23gb was to stop pirating, same thing with Max Payne3 and other recent games.
It's the new form of DRM


Awww that's so cute, please give more nonsensical replies. I always chuckle whenever I read your posts. :)
#80SoulTrapperPosted 9/16/2012 6:30:06 AM
dexter1984 posted...

Awww that's so cute, please give more nonsensical replies. I always chuckle whenever I read your posts. :)


So you focus on one thing out of all of that?

And it's true, they just don't compress the files.
Max Payne 3 is a perfect example of this. Not a big game, looks good, but there's no reason it's a 35GB file outside of discouraging illegal means of acquiring the game.
---
PSN: El_Coon