This has to be the single, dumbest PC to console comparison I've ever seen

#61scoobydoobydontPosted 7/15/2014 1:39:08 PM
ThePaleRiderp posted...

There's a PS3 PS4 Xbox One Vita and 3DS emulator now? This may shock you but I play on both my PC and consoles. Certain companies like NIS Atlus etc NEVER put their games on PC. God forbid I actually enjoy gaming on my consoles and handhelds. And how long have PC gamers been waiting for games like Red Dead Redemption? The attitude im getting here is that anything that isn't PC is crap. Every platform has its pros and cons.


One, I never said or implied the bolded. Two, you should read the rest of my post. Three, 3DS and Vita don't count, they aren't consoles and thus, not subject to being included in a PC versus console discussion. And FYI, PS3 and 360 emulators are both in the early stages. It's only a matter of time--to say nothing of the fact that 90+% of Xbone, PS4, PS3 etc games are already on PC. RDR? Congrats, you found one of the very, very few exceptions. If only I mentioned there would be a few decent exclusives... oh wait, I did!
---
"Why do you expect me to be rational? I'm a troll..." -Izraeil
http://i.imgur.com/8LUhEFG.jpg
#62Crystyn_7BPosted 7/15/2014 1:57:48 PM
SoulTrapper posted...
ShippFFXI posted...

^Implying consoles have better hardware.

^Implying $400 could build a current (at the time) monster gaming rig anytime within the last 8+ years.

XD


It was perfectly possible to build a PC that easily outmatched the previous generation of consoles with $400 the last few years. You don't need a "monster gaming rig" to match or even outperform consoles.

Right now, you'd need to spend around $500 to get the equivalent of a console

MRL3G3ND posted...

which just supports my point...Crysis 1 7 y/o graphics have gone unmatched...it pushed PCs to the brink...things like water cooling were needed to run this thing modded and maxed...

EA saw that going balls out with the graphics was a waste...which is why Crysis 2 was such a disappointment...there was barely a difference between the console versions...they tried making it up by releasing texture packs for the PC...but overall crisis 2 & 3 don't come close to the graphic fidelity of Crysis 1

If you rig is huffing and puffing to run a console port...I call shenanigans... I think it's an optimization fraud going on...

The PC market absolutely DEPENDS on the sales of bleeding edge technology...if there are no games testing that, then why would I upgrade...just to get some shiney console textures to run smother, shinier?


This was proven with WatchDogs, which had a lot of graphics options deliberately left out.

Enabling those options not only made the game look a lot better, it also fixed a lot of issues, such as stuttering.

Ubisoft deliberately made the PC version look worse, so that console versions wouldn't stand out as looking mediocre.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is not the only game where the PC version is gimped to make consoles look better.


Yeah that was a weird deal, wouldn't it be enough to have it as an afterthought instead of actively gimping it.
#63MasteroftheArtsPosted 7/15/2014 2:19:44 PM
Sabram posted...
My 650Ti runs any game i've played on it at max settings, even MMOs with good framerates. Sure at times doing raids on Tera I might drop down to 20 FPS, but that's mostly due to the game not handling multi-threading very well and only using 1 core of the 4 that I have on my CPU. Which raises another point. Online games like Dota 2 or MMOs are very CPU intensive, but not as much GPU intensive. the reason why you likely get bad frames on Dota 2 is because your CPU is junk, and not because it needs a high-end GPU.


I'm almost positive you're confusing the GT 750M with the GTX 750. This is evidenced by the fact that you're about to compare a desktop GPU with a notebook GPU; as if either or them have anything in common. Here are the best benchmarks I could find of the GT 750M. Sites don't tend to benchmark notebook GPU's much, let alone MMO's.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html


As you can see, it fails to hit ultra at 1080p for ESO, just barely cracks 30 in Dota 2, and crashes and burns on ultra with Guild Wars 2.

Hell. Compare it to the 880M which released in March of this year which still can't crack ultra 60fps on Guild Wars 2 or ESO. You are vastly overstating the power of this GPU.


Sabram posted...
My 650Ti runs any game i've played on it at max settings, even MMOs with good framerates. Sure at times doing raids on Tera I might drop down to 20 FPS, but that's mostly due to the game not handling multi-threading very well and only using 1 core of the 4 that I have on my CPU. Which raises another point. Online games like Dota 2 or MMOs are very CPU intensive, but not as much GPU intensive. the reason why you likely get bad frames on Dota 2 is because your CPU is junk, and not because it needs a high-end GPU.

So really, you're encountering severe bottlenecks in your hardware. Which BTW, is a thing that consoles a SPECIFICALLY engineered to NOT have a problem with.


Not necessarily. Dota 2 happens to be CPU intensive, but HoN is GPU intensive. So is Guild Wars 2. So is FFXIV.

Remember, we're being extra charitable and using the type of GPU that you'd find in a $750 laptop. If we drop to $500, it's laughable what he said.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#64SoulTrapperPosted 7/15/2014 2:25:07 PM
Crystyn_7B posted...
SoulTrapper posted...
ShippFFXI posted...

^Implying consoles have better hardware.

^Implying $400 could build a current (at the time) monster gaming rig anytime within the last 8+ years.

XD


It was perfectly possible to build a PC that easily outmatched the previous generation of consoles with $400 the last few years. You don't need a "monster gaming rig" to match or even outperform consoles.

Right now, you'd need to spend around $500 to get the equivalent of a console

MRL3G3ND posted...

which just supports my point...Crysis 1 7 y/o graphics have gone unmatched...it pushed PCs to the brink...things like water cooling were needed to run this thing modded and maxed...

EA saw that going balls out with the graphics was a waste...which is why Crysis 2 was such a disappointment...there was barely a difference between the console versions...they tried making it up by releasing texture packs for the PC...but overall crisis 2 & 3 don't come close to the graphic fidelity of Crysis 1

If you rig is huffing and puffing to run a console port...I call shenanigans... I think it's an optimization fraud going on...

The PC market absolutely DEPENDS on the sales of bleeding edge technology...if there are no games testing that, then why would I upgrade...just to get some shiney console textures to run smother, shinier?


This was proven with WatchDogs, which had a lot of graphics options deliberately left out.

Enabling those options not only made the game look a lot better, it also fixed a lot of issues, such as stuttering.

Ubisoft deliberately made the PC version look worse, so that console versions wouldn't stand out as looking mediocre.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is not the only game where the PC version is gimped to make consoles look better.


Yeah that was a weird deal, wouldn't it be enough to have it as an afterthought instead of actively gimping it.


They even had "It's PC, who cares?" or something similar in the code they disabled and hid away.

I understand that most devs who make games for all platforms don't have PC as their primary target audience, but to actually make PC versions run worse than they should just to not make consoles look weak is pretty insane.
#65ssj954vegitoPosted 7/15/2014 4:41:03 PM
scoobydoobydont posted...
kingofjamaica posted...
triple s posted...
The particles really stand out but I don't see anything in that game that looks better than Saints Row 3 on PC.


Literally everything in Infamous Second Son looks better than the PC version of Saints Row 3, except maybe the anisotropic filtering. I don't remember the settings on SR3, but I think it allowed 16xAF.


SS looks good, but you are out of your mind.


A-are you kidding?

SR3
http://img.techpowerup.org/120309/Saints%20Row%20The%20Third%20(2).jpg
http://img.techpowerup.org/120309/Saints%20Row%20The%20Third%20(3).jpg
http://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/saintsrowthethird_dx11-2011-11-24-17-19-35-49.jpg


ISS
http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2014/04/05/infamoussecondson-lanternmarket1395232552jpg-e323f8.jpg
http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2014/02/06/infamous5jpg-bb2373.jpg
http://assets2.ignimgs.com/2014/04/05/infamoussecondson-lanterngate1395232551jpg-e323f7.jpg
---
Proud to be EPic.
You ever notice that everything in the universe spins?
#66jessica73Posted 7/15/2014 5:31:16 PM
is SS supposed to be impressive, cause it's kinda embarrassing to be that close to a 2011/2012 title like that or sleepy dogs
---
http://i.imgur.com/uAzPe.jpg http://steamsigmaker.de/bg/thebotqueen.png
http://raptr.com/badge/thebotqueen/ach.png
#67kingofjamaicaPosted 7/15/2014 7:19:07 PM
jessica73 posted...
is SS supposed to be impressive, cause it's kinda embarrassing to be that close to a 2011/2012 title like that or sleepy dogs


Close is an interesting word to use. What, pray tell, comes even remotely close in Saints Row 3?
---
At some point, you're going to have to talk to a tree and do what it says. - Arbor Day Rule, Grand List of RPG Cliches.
#68BushidoEffect3Posted 7/15/2014 7:25:16 PM
Kazuya_80 posted...
Madmax1985 posted...
Jedi454 posted...
Don't let the PC tryhards get to you, everyone knows consoles are optimised on and PC gets the ports most of the time.


It's okay, let the butthurt of playing on inferior machines flow through you.


How many games on computer look as good as exclusives on ps3, x360, ps4 and X1 regardless of resolution and FPS ? About 5 ?


You're mixing up art direction and style with raw power. like if The Last of Us was on PC. OF course it would look even more amazing! It's not gonna worse on PC. only better. But since it's exclusive you decide to use that as some kind of point..
---
http://i.imgur.com/exzrVRj.jpg, http://i.imgur.com/35CqqSt.gif
http://youtu.be/lyOHNjZ-2qM
#69jessica73Posted 7/15/2014 7:55:03 PM(edited)
kingofjamaica posted...

Close is an interesting word to use. What, pray tell, comes even remotely close in Saints Row 3?


Both are pretty neck and neck in ground and building textures ^_^ Foliage also looking pretty similar. Maybe you should tell me what's super impressive on Infamous, cause the only thing I'm seeing is it's finally somewhat colorful for a change in the series. And... I guess it has some DoF? Better lighting too. I mean it looks better, but it's not that wow worthy either >_>
---
http://i.imgur.com/uAzPe.jpg http://steamsigmaker.de/bg/thebotqueen.png
http://raptr.com/badge/thebotqueen/ach.png
#70Jedi454Posted 7/15/2014 7:54:53 PM
Lol, Jessica you tryhard pc elitest.
---
"Forza 5 isn't that much of an improvement I expected when compared to Forza 5" - Xeeh_Bitz