The case for PC gaming graphics...

[ultima_trev]

Forgive me if this post seems a bit jaded. I have been an avid PC gamer since the Doom II days and became obsessed when OpenGL extensions were released for Quake. However, these days it seems there is little incentive to stick with it as consoles have almost caught up with PCs in terms of immersion, despite having no where near the memory bandwidth, floating point, pixel, texture or shader pushing power.

I don't believe living in a console port world is the sole culprit. Even though I did enjoy PC exclusives such as Crysis, Crysis Warhead and StarCraft II, there was nothing about them that seemed like they were too technologically advanced to be ported to Xbox360 or PS3. Yes, I do realize the textures are higher res and the polygon count are probably a bit beyond the reach of current gen consoles, but I'd wager it's probably not by much.

Look at it this way: I typically game at 720P. I see no reason to sacrifice high framerates for image quality when there is little to gain. Mostly, it's less jaggies, which can be fixed with antialiasing anyhow. I rarely see textures in even the most demanding PC games that get more detailed as resolution increases, rather they just get stretched.

My theory is until PC CPUs/GPUs can utilize raytracing efficiently or perhaps a raster/raytrace hybrid, PCs will have little headroom in immersion over consoles. Now, I'm not sure if we have capable hardware now or require something much more efficient, but I wish someone would try, damn it!

[JustAnEngineer]

I typically game at 2560x1600. It seems immersive to me.

[Bensam123]

Not sure where you came from with that... but graphics on consoles don't look anywhere near as good as they do on the PC. They don't have the processing power to push physics calculations either (for what little physics are actually used in PC games). I don't think you can begin to put consoles in the same boat with PCs... smartphones, however, are catching up to consoles... isn't that sad?


On a side note, your post is sorta interesting. You seem to start off as if you're strongly sided against consolization and even 'jaded' in that fashion, yet it breaks down into 'consoles aren't that bad I actually game at low resolutions because I have cataracts' part towards the end.

[morphine]

I guess if you're gaming at 1336x768 or lower, the case could be made that a console would look nearly as good. But I don't, and I find the lack of resolution and texture detail (I fully disagree with you on this one) quite distracting. But the real clincher is that far too many console games are 30FPS, or have trouble maintaing close to 60FPS, and that really throws me off. Add to that the usual lack of AA, and there you go.

So yeah, and this is not to say that consoles don't have their place (as the market has proven), that's perfectly cool, but I'd much rather have higher resolution, proper smoothness, usually higher texture detail, and anti-aliasing. Oh, and higher draw distances.

Don't let this be a knock on you either: if console graphics work out fine for you, then by all means, enjoy yourself. That's the whole point after all.

[yogibbear]

720P is rubbish resolution.

[williams_john]

I always use 2560x1600 graphics for my PC it seems so good.

[C-A_99]

PC's will always have superior customizability; the user can configure everything to fit his/her gaming needs. The limitation to 720p (which looks slightly bad on most monitors since no monitor works at that resolution), 30fps, gamepads, etc. simply don't provide many options to improve the experience. (i.e. users can't even favor, say, higher resolutions over antialiasing, much less have a choice on whether or not their graphics hardware is sorely outdated.) Not only are there no options on AA, there's almost never any AF used either despite the fact that it takes fewer graphics computing resources than other features.

Upon release, consoles are usually at the forefront of technology, with manufacturers often making large compromises to hardware profits for more powerful hardware. Unfortunately, they are also very inflexible; the same console can't be upgraded later and the games cannot be configured to run with different settings, so consoles will never have anywhere close to the same advantages as PC's. (At least not after a few years from their release.)

[TurtlePerson2]

I think a great example is a game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It was the exact same game whether you played it on PC or consoles, but it was actually very different between the two.

The first big difference is resolution. It was done at 540p on consoles with an upconvert, while most PC gamers were probably playing it at 1080p. This means that PC gamers had four times as many pixels on the screen at a time.

The next big difference is control. The mouse and keyboard allow experienced players to be a lot more accurate. This changed the way the game played, making it less run and gun, and more tactical compared to the console counterpart.

The biggest difference in my opinion is the difference in audience. PC gamers own and use headsets. Even in a mainstream game like MW2, you still saw teams coordinating and communicating (especially in hardcore mode and search-and-destroy). On the console versions, every time you would hear someone speak you would end up muting them. It would either be a little kid swearing like a sailor or a person with a heavy southern accent swearing like a sailor.

I use MW2 as an example because there were no special modifications for the PC version to better take advantage of the platform's advantages. Even a straight port will play better on PC than on console. Ocassioinally, there are games that are actually made significantly worse when they are ported (The Force Unleashed comes to mind). These and console exclusives are the only reason that I own a console.

[Sunburn74]

I just bought a PS3. Reason simply is that the release cycle of grade A PC games is too slow. Also imo, PC games are really starting to lack in the replayability department, which used to be a forte.

When it comes to graphics though, PC gaming is unbeatable. Crysis 2 maxed out is gorgeous. You can spend all day just looking at glass, water, and the end of your gun.

[Chrispy_]

For me, "immersion" is a sense of fluidity and lag-free responsiveness.

The graphics could be wireframe, yet my imagination will fill in ALL of the gaps as long as the framerate is high and my input gives me instant feedback.

The same principle applies to cinema. Even when watching Avatar 3D on London's finest screen, I couldn't immerse myself in the lush, crisply rendered world be-ca-us-e it ju-dd-er-re-d al-on-g at tw-en-ty-fo-ur pa-th-et-ic fr-am-es pe-r se-co-nd.

I could tell what refresh rate a CRT monitor was running at, right up to about 100Hz. 24Hz JUST DOESN'T CUT IT.

[FubbHead]

Mouse + keyboard + >30fps graphics.

[kamikaziechameleon]

Look at it this way: I typically game at 720P. I see no reason to sacrifice high framerates for image quality when there is little to gain. Mostly, it's less jaggies, which can be fixed with antialiasing anyhow. I rarely see textures in even the most demanding PC games that get more detailed as resolution increases, rather they just get stretched.

If you game at 1080p or above you CLEARLY see the difference between pc and console games, even for ports. I have a 1080p 60 inch plasma and the resolution most xbox games display in is just painful to look at when gaming. Assassins creed games look like muddy crap, so do the halo games, the list goes on. PS3 games fair allot better but at the end of the day when I bring my pc out and plug it in to play a action adventure game like arkham asylum it looks SO much better I simply can't believe it(and that is a near straight up console port) Playing pc exclusive games on my plasma with suround sound is simply amazing!!! Another area consoles really suffer in and part of this is the optimization for lower resolutions... DRAW IN! Every major console release save for uncharted 2 and a few others features major popin/draw distance problems. The creates major issues with things like sniping at great distance in halo, etc. Maybe I'm wierd but I notice how these technical limitations effect gameplay especially in MP shooters. Gears 2 was horrible for drawing and poping textures etc. I remember the goofy cinematic popins during mass effect 1 on xbox. The hardware limitations of consoles are an interesting thing. Sure the 360 with its 3 processors all hyper threaded was a beast for the first 6 months of launch no programmer could work with it, same for ps3. Now that the software development has caught up the hardware possibilities have expanded on pc to leave the consoles in the dust. I have all 3 consoles and a low end gaming rig, the low end gaming rig looks way better without even trying.

[l33t-g4m3r]

Consoles can and will catch up to PC graphics every couple years. Graphics aren't the issue, it's the community and customizability. Sure, PC hardware is powerful, but it's weak on optimizations, making it difficult to fully utilize.

[clone]

I typically game at 2560x1600. It seems immersive to me.

resolution does not an immersive game make.

games that have a tendency to become immersive are games that distract the player so that everything is forgotten but the game.

good games do this, crappy looking good games do this.

beautiful looking garbage games do not do this, bad games distract and pull the gamer out of the experience, visuals are only as immersive as the mind will allow them to be. one of the biggest problems in gaming today has nothing to do with the "console vs PC" debate but instead in most cases it's the disproportionate focus on graphics at the expense of all other aspects.

when I played StarCraft and Brood War I was immersed, when I played Mechwarrior 3 I was so immersed my hands were sweating on the controls, my heart was racing and I "felt" impacts on my mech.

neither game manages better than 1024 X 768, StarCraft in particular is 640 X 480.... lol.

I've been playing FreeSpace 2 the scp games lately, some of the campaigns have graphics fully updated to 2009 specs while others only 2001, I'm currently playing the Derelict campaign with 2001 graphics and while the ships look simple in comparison I'm equally immersed once I play.

it's only when I sit back and compare that I focus on it.

[CB5000]

I've been playing FreeSpace 2 the scp games lately, some of the campaigns have graphics fully updated to 2009 specs while others only 2001, I'm currently playing the Derelict campaign with 2001 graphics and while the ships look simple in comparison I'm equally immersed once I play.

it's only when I sit back and compare that I focus on it.

God i miss space sims. There was some rumors about a Freespace 3 but doesn't seem like that's going to happen. I think a played freespace 2 dozens of times from the release date until about a year ago when I played it through again.

Right now I'm playing vindictus, a free action rpg... and even though the beginning missions are easy and not too immersive, when you get to level 60+ and fight the gigantic bosses that have insanely fast attacks... you are totally locked on that screen for the duration of the boss fight because even looking away for a second could mean death. This is the newest content that was just released in NA servers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNMek0cXmnE A lot of times it's just utter chaos.

I think immersion depends on the person too. Like for me RTS games like star craft and a lot of traditional online MMO's like WoW fail to create that immersion for me and I get easily distracted or bored. Dues Ex; Human Revolution had bouts of total immersion but overall it didn't do it for me. I really like games that almost put you into the world like Oblivion and Fallout 3 really had a lot of "immersion" value for me as well as older games like system shock 2 which scared the heck out of me. But then again other games like FEAR and crysis bored me to tears.

But yea, I also totally agree with the idea that it's the game-person dynamic the causes the immersion rather than the graphics.

I am hoping that BF3 will have the magic combination of great immersion with great graphics.

[clone]

God i miss space sims. There was some rumors about a Freespace 3 but doesn't seem like that's going to happen. I think a played freespace 2 dozens of times from the release date until about a year ago when I played it through again.

various forms of FreeSpace 3 have come out at the SCP site, no one wants to commit the name FS3 but in particular Darius's mods Blue Planet and Blue Planet: War In Heaven push the FreeSpace story considerably further along.

the two mods together also introduce several new ships factions and fighting styles.

if you haven't played the FreeSpace series in a while I recommend you visit the SCP site and grab Tury's installer which will install cleanly every single mod if you want.

the additional campaigns are stable and run great, some of them have voice acting in them some don't and in the case of Blue Planet and it's sequel they tend to be a little slow to get going before they really become surprisingly fun if not equally epic to the two FS games.

my only complaint with the BP pair of campaigns was that their was a considerable amount of dialogue and a few missions were more like episodes in a tv series vs actual games with dubious and equally annoying objectives.

just when I was ready to quit playing War In Heaven, had decided to stop because the author was deliberately limiting ship and weapon configs so he could dictate style of play imposing escort after escort missions contingent on every ship surviving.... I figured I'd give it one more chance and surprisingly that was when the objectives granted me more independence, missions went on the offensive instead of retreat, new ships and weapons were introduced allowing me to kill bad guys at whim and the storyline shifted into high gear and got me really motivated for the next installment.

[LoneWolf15]

I'd love to go back and play me some good Freespace/Freespace 2. Also had the retail add-on packs.

I'd pay good money for a third. My Saitek Cyborg has been rather lonely as of late.

While we're at it, somebody bring back Crimson Skies to the PC, with an online multiplayer system that doesn't use the Windows Gaming Zone. Man, I miss flying with my virtual squadron mates (had friends from around the globe), doing voice chatter with Battlecom or Roger Wilco for voice chatter.

It wasn't compatible with Windows 2000/XP, so it was gone, and the Zone sucked, though we didn't care because the game was just too much fun.

P.S. I game at 1920 x 1200 and I like it like that.

[clone]

source code project is so much more than the retail add on packs...

all of the campaigns on Source Code project and all of the updates to the graphics and sound are free.

just install the game, grab tury's installer and grab it all and then have fun, will take months to get through the campaigns.

[michael_d]

I have not touched my Xbox 360 since I bought new PC. PC gaming is by leaps and bounds superior.