Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: Crytek say “PC is easily a generation ahead”, being held back by consoles

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azimuth View Post
    I just need it to play games.
    ...that are a generation behind. Did you know that Halo 3 renders on 640p and is internally upscaled to 720 HD ready & on Full HD TVs upscaled *again*?

    I'm all for the convenience that consoles bring. Just annoyed that the console market is pulling down PC gaming with it. ("future PC games will be limited by having to cater to less powerful consoles.")

    Quote Originally Posted by Azimuth View Post
    And here I thought creative expression and content were always more important that OMGRAPHICSLOL, anyway.
    It is....but they are not mutually exclusive. Why settle for one when it is quite possible to have both?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pr⊕phet View Post
    when i get home i want to enjoy my fucking game not practically re-program it to work. that's definitely one side i do enjoy of my console VS my pc.
    And I want to change my FoV, console commands and dedicated servers. Instead I'm stuck with poor consoles ports.

  2. #32
    Azimuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,016

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HavocXphere View Post
    ...that are a generation behind. Did you know that Halo 3 renders on 640p and is internally upscaled to 720 HD ready & on Full HD TVs upscaled *again*?
    Yes. I'm not sure what your point is, besides claiming, "IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUGLY". But I think it looks just fine - the aesthetics are designed within the console's limitations. Halo is not meant to look photorealistic, and it's not meant to look like Crysis.

    Also, a game is more than its graphics.

    I'm all for the convenience that consoles bring. Just annoyed that the console market is pulling down PC gaming with it. ("future PC games will be limited by having to cater to less powerful consoles.")
    No, developers who are working primarily for the console market are pulling down PC gaming with it. But that's kinda like saying mainstream movies are pulling down arthouse projects. You can't expect most developers to pay more attention to such a small market.

    It is....but they are not mutually exclusive. Why settle for one when it is quite possible to have both?
    Can anybody honestly say that something like Gears of War 2 - or even Halo: Reach, for that matter - is ugly? Graphics don't have to be photorealistic to be good. Hell, some of the best-looking games of this generation (Braid, for example) are 2D.

    And I want to change my FoV, console commands and dedicated servers. Instead I'm stuck with poor consoles ports.
    Again, developers are catering to their largest market. And why shouldn't they? It's just good business sense.

  3. #33

    Default

    I would probably be happy with my consoles (both 360 and PS3) if they rendered games at the screens native resolution. 600p+- upscaled to 1080p is ugly, it is extremely ugly. It's like taking a tiny picture and zooming the crap out of.

    Prior to getting my 360 and later PS3, the last time I played a 3D game not running at native res was half life 1 in software rendering. That was 1998, 12 years ago. Its just impossible not notice it when swapping from PC to console and vice versa.

    Here's an example (view full size):

    600p:


    1080p upscaled:


    1080p native:


    In this case there is 8x anti-aliasing in the upscale, so there are no jaggies and it looks far better than it should, but still terrible. The text is unreadable, but a work around on consoles is to use a massive font size.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    757

    Default

    Level faster.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •