Technically the most underpowered console generation ever?
- Thread starter de3d1
- Start date
They said it was a side project that a few employees did over the course of a few weeks didn't they?
How does that translate into "in-game engine"?
They said it's rendered on the fly.. there's a big difference between that and an actual game/engine. There's a huge chance any "code" associated with that rendering will be completely thrown out, because you don't build a working game engine in that amount of time.. you build throwaway demo code.
Either way, it was basically a "playback" of their motion capture system.. zero "game" being displayed on screen. I really do get annoyed that these non-game "games" are even considered relevant.
I never thought I would like them to be honest. Then a couple years ago Blizzard ran a deal where if you sign a contract to keep your wow account active for 12 months they gave you all kinds of in-game stuff and a free digital copy of D3. So I said why not and then they invited me to the beta and I was instantly hooked.
POE and to a lesser extent D3 are a lot of mindless monster splattering fun. There's no better way to describe them than that.
I do not play MMO and strategy style games. But I use my PC for Adventure games, many of which I cannot get on console.
I enjoy some games from almost all game genres (fighting games and platforming games about the only 2 I don't.)
Strategy games are some of my favorites, but I lean towards "softcore" strategy.. like Defense Gird or Civ 5.
Strategy games are some of my favorites, but I lean towards "softcore" strategy.. like Defense Gird or Civ 5.
I know people always want to compare a console to a PC but wouldn't we be better served comparing a new console generations "power" to the generation of consoles it's replacing? What I mean by that is I think we'd be better off comparing the jump from the xbox/ps2 generation to the 360/ps3 generation to this new one. Are the PS4/X1 a bigger jump in technology than the 360/ps3 were over what they replaced? if not is it because there isn't as much room to grow now as there was then? I just don't see the point in comparing consoles to higher end PC's but that's just me.
Last edited:
Hi, Jinca. You must be new to gaming forums, common sense has no place here. Please refrain from such things in the future or face a lengthy forum ban.
Last gen was much worse. You must have not paid attention to it back then. A good example would be Oblivion. Released simultaneously on PC and Xbox and then one whole year later on PS3 and the game still looked MUCH better on PC.
This generation is not that bad, really. I'm actually kind of impressed.
This generation is not that bad, really. I'm actually kind of impressed.
"On a technological level at least, the reality is that everyone is now a PC gamer - even if you own a PlayStation 4 or Xbox One. The convergence in technology in combination with the fact that Microsoft and Sony are unwilling to make crippling losses on their next-gen consoles has created an interesting scenario - gamers can put together categorically more powerful PC gaming hardware at a very competitive price. Not only that, but the nature of Moore's Law and the immensely competitive PC hardware market will only see the value proposition of the platform rise still further. What remains to be seen is the extent to which the fixed platform architecture of the consoles can be leveraged by developers for increased performance.
In the here and now, we're wondering whether we did achieve a truly transformative gameplay experience over PlayStation 4 and Xbox One? In a number of cases, we categorically did not. Need for Speed: Rivals boasts only minor refinements over the console versions and was pegged to the same 30fps, while Call of Duty: Ghosts is a genuinely poor experience on PC. With Assassin's Creed 4, we had a great deal of leeway in exploring higher-quality visual settings, but again, the feeling of the game was very similar. On Tomb Raider, we could beat the 1080p performance of the PS4 game, but only with careful settings management - and the disabling of the showcase TressFX technology.
In short, there's no magic bullet that guarantees you a locked 1080p60 experience. Even with settings pared back, both of these titles failed to remain solid even when we ran them on an overclocked Core i7-3770K at 4.3GHz matched with a Radeon R9 290X. While we expected as much from COD - it has some performance issues on console, after all - we were very surprised to find that AC4 had optimisation issues that could bring the frame-rate crashing down from 60fps even on high-end rigs, while virtually any gaming PC with even a modest GPU can hand in a console-style 30fps with no problems whatsoever.
Only two titles out of six demonstrated the enormous improvement we were after. With Lego Marvel Super Heroes, 60fps gaming (streaming hiccups aside) did everything we expected in making for a tangibly superior experience, while Battlefield 4 remained the best example of a game transformed: 1080p with just minor drops throughout the campaign, improved visual quality beyond resolution alone and a 60fps experience that extends into the multiplayer game. It's frankly remarkable.
However, PC elitists expecting a knockout blow against the consoles - PlayStation 4 in particular - may end up disappointed by our findings. The amount of power you're getting in a small form-factor box - complete with a substantial backing ecosystem - offers simply phenomenal value. And all of the games tested are first-gen efforts; clearly they will get better. The only question is whether future optimisations for console improve the PC experience, or whether we'll be reliant on PC brute-forcing its way to supremacy, as per the last generation.
But let's not forget the advantages the PC platform has to offer outside of the narrow 1080p head-to-head comparisons we've carried out here. Our sub-£500 computer opens up a lot of options not available to console owners - and the results can be hugely impressive. We had no problem running Need for Speed and AC4 at 2560x1440 at 30fps on the same quality settings, while Lego Marvel Super Heroes also ran at 2.5K at 60fps. On top of that, we have a route to stereo 3D on most games with Nvidia 3D Vision, plus there's G-Sync to factor in, not to mention the upcoming VR revolution, spearheaded by Oculus Rift. You won't be playing Uncharted or Halo on PC, but each platform has its own range of enviable exclusives - be they hardware or software."
/thread
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-next-gen-digital-foundry-pc
In the here and now, we're wondering whether we did achieve a truly transformative gameplay experience over PlayStation 4 and Xbox One? In a number of cases, we categorically did not. Need for Speed: Rivals boasts only minor refinements over the console versions and was pegged to the same 30fps, while Call of Duty: Ghosts is a genuinely poor experience on PC. With Assassin's Creed 4, we had a great deal of leeway in exploring higher-quality visual settings, but again, the feeling of the game was very similar. On Tomb Raider, we could beat the 1080p performance of the PS4 game, but only with careful settings management - and the disabling of the showcase TressFX technology.
In short, there's no magic bullet that guarantees you a locked 1080p60 experience. Even with settings pared back, both of these titles failed to remain solid even when we ran them on an overclocked Core i7-3770K at 4.3GHz matched with a Radeon R9 290X. While we expected as much from COD - it has some performance issues on console, after all - we were very surprised to find that AC4 had optimisation issues that could bring the frame-rate crashing down from 60fps even on high-end rigs, while virtually any gaming PC with even a modest GPU can hand in a console-style 30fps with no problems whatsoever.
Only two titles out of six demonstrated the enormous improvement we were after. With Lego Marvel Super Heroes, 60fps gaming (streaming hiccups aside) did everything we expected in making for a tangibly superior experience, while Battlefield 4 remained the best example of a game transformed: 1080p with just minor drops throughout the campaign, improved visual quality beyond resolution alone and a 60fps experience that extends into the multiplayer game. It's frankly remarkable.
However, PC elitists expecting a knockout blow against the consoles - PlayStation 4 in particular - may end up disappointed by our findings. The amount of power you're getting in a small form-factor box - complete with a substantial backing ecosystem - offers simply phenomenal value. And all of the games tested are first-gen efforts; clearly they will get better. The only question is whether future optimisations for console improve the PC experience, or whether we'll be reliant on PC brute-forcing its way to supremacy, as per the last generation.
But let's not forget the advantages the PC platform has to offer outside of the narrow 1080p head-to-head comparisons we've carried out here. Our sub-£500 computer opens up a lot of options not available to console owners - and the results can be hugely impressive. We had no problem running Need for Speed and AC4 at 2560x1440 at 30fps on the same quality settings, while Lego Marvel Super Heroes also ran at 2.5K at 60fps. On top of that, we have a route to stereo 3D on most games with Nvidia 3D Vision, plus there's G-Sync to factor in, not to mention the upcoming VR revolution, spearheaded by Oculus Rift. You won't be playing Uncharted or Halo on PC, but each platform has its own range of enviable exclusives - be they hardware or software."
/thread
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-next-gen-digital-foundry-pc
None of us payed attention but you? Have you ever heard of bad optimization? Its a simple concept really and oblivion was a clear example.. 360 was relatively close to PCs technically during that time, whereas PS4/Xb1 aren't at all. Now go.
lol at you thinking the ps3 version would have compared, especially that early in its life cycle.
22 Seconds and onwards. I'm sure there are better comparison vids but i can't be bothered. 360 version looked like sh!t compared to the PC version. Not "close" at all.
And I don't really understand why you're being so aggressive. As if somehow i insulted you? Don't make a thread like this and expect everybody to just agree with you.
i can post comparison videos all day of crappy ports if you think oblivion is somehow the 360's/ps3's limit, look at skyrim on 360 compared to it, its literally night and day advancement, obviously 6 years later PCs had advanced much more by then, but skyrim literally destroys oblivion visually on consoles.
I mean you saying oblivion on ps3 didn't compare to PC oblivion pretty much says enough, you don't understand porting or optimization in the slightest. Of course he 360/ps3 versions aren't going to compare, especially ps3 that early with the tools they had. Thats not aggressive towards you, just stating it. Sorry if I was too harsh or insulted you, but how can I even be bothered by a difference in opinion when you have no knowledge of the basics? Just doesn't work that way.
The Escapist had a nice editorial on game development and looking at the trend of high profile developers leaving mega studios to go indie. How the nature of the modern industrialized gaming complex is stifling creativity. That the creative leads don't want projects with 200 member teams that basically work for bean counter than an art department. There is no freedom or creativity in being big. It is all about publishing 1080p rehashes for the mass drones to gobble up. So if that is the gaming future you desire then maybe power matters. However, if creativity (and I don't just mean another way to rename perks) is something you prize out if your games, then all this talk if most powerful is moot.
I'm disappoined in the Wii U's hardware and crappy online features. The X1 and Ps4 look look good IMOand will look better in the future. Sony is very close to bankruptcy I don't know why people expect so much from their console. We are lucky that ps4 even exist so please shuttup and enjoy gaming.