PC graphics just not that much better

[Preacher]

I picked up a gtx 560ti late last year to have a look at PC graphics and I have to say I wasn't that impressed. I played skyrim and arkham city. They were both smoother than on the Xbox and had nicer touches but they essentially look the same. I was expecting a lot more.

Is the PC being hampered by games companies making more money on consoles so release a PC version with a few bells and whistles rather than taking full advantage of the hardware?

There has always been a big jump in quality between console generations but I'm starting to thick its going to become a lot less noticeable. Please tell me I'm wrong!

[meandmymouth]

A lot of games are built for consoles and then ported to PC. That means that straight off the bat the games are designed to run on much older hardware rather than the latest and greatest s many of the bells and whistles that only PC hardware can handle aren't included at all. Games such as Crysis will show a far greater graphical difference between PC and console as it was built for PC and then ported for console, instead of the other way round.

[Preacher]

I though that would be the case. It's a shame they don't design the graphics engines to use more of the power a top gpu can handle.

Is it true a 680 is a waste at 1080p? Seems crazy you could spend a grand on a Titan and the games are the limiting factor..

[KeyboardDemon]

Firstly if you want to see PC graphics at their best then you need to look at some good DX11 titles with high res texture packs as well. Though my nephew went from XBox 360 and could see a massive change in details and quality just comparing Call of Duty MW3 on his XBox to the game running on his PC (this was running an HD6970) and he was blown away by the differences.

Take a look at Batman Arkahm Asylum or Arkham City with Physx running or BF3. Download some of the benchmark programs as well like Unigine Heaven and 3dMark, these are free and serve as great tech demos on top of benchmarking your PCs performance.

Lastly look through every game setting and driver setting to make sure you are really getting all the best you can out of the rig you're running.

[crossy]

I picked up a gtx 560ti late last year to have a look at PC graphics and I have to say I wasn't that impressed. I played skyrim and arkham city. They were both smoother than on the Xbox and had nicer touches but they essentially look the same. I was expecting a lot more.

Is the PC being hampered by games companies making more money on consoles so release a PC version with a few bells and whistles rather than taking full advantage of the hardware?

There has always been a big jump in quality between console generations but I'm starting to thick its going to become a lot less noticeable. Please tell me I'm wrong!

I'm going to agree with KeyboardDemon's post - the problem is definitely LAZY developers. I'm in the lucky(?) position of having a couple of titles on both XBox and PC, and here's my findings (as far as I remember):
Call Of Duty 2 - not that much difference, PC was just "cleaner"
Medal of Honor: Airbourne - PC noticably better
Call Of Duty 4 (MW) - cleaner on the PC, again very noticable
Saints Row 3 - like CoD2, the PC version looked "nicer", greatly increased smoothness on the PC
Just Cause 2 (which Hexus use as their DX10 benchmark) - night and day, Xbox looks positively "8 bit" in comparison to the PC
Assassins Creed Brotherhood/Revelations - as usual Brotherhood is less obviously "CG" than the XBox. Revelations seems to suit the PC better - the streets and roofs of Constantinople are just better on the PC - no argument. In fact, I don't feel happy playing ACR on the XBox now, it looks naff.
Battlefield 3 - again night and day. XBox suffers noticable "tearing" in places that even a cheap (<£100) PC graphics card doesn't, (GT460SOC if you're interested). Image again better on PC (smoother) than on XBox. In fact XBox version is so poor (comparatively) that it's this game that got me interested in PC gaming again.
Far Cry 3 - not even in the same league. Like JC2, if you move from Xbox to PC, it's like going from budget CRT SD TV to HD on a 40" top spec LCD.
Others I tried, I've not mentioned because basically you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between XBox and PC.

Disclaimer: the FC3 comparison was done on XBox v's PC running a 7970. The rest were the same PC running a Gigabyte GF460 SuperOverclocked, although I did rerun my Just Cause testing on the 7970 (and my jaw hit the floor!)

[shaithis]

I find it isn't so bad.

Don't forget to check video options. One some games they scroll down and you might not realise they are there and can add quite a bit.

Dead Space 3 as a recent example....everyone stated it was a direct console port.....look in the gfx options and you'll realise that isn't quite the case.

There are also things like ENB that work on some games and can add that bit more.

[scaryjim]

The other thing to consider is that with a console you know exactly what hardware you're coding for so you can use specific optimisations to get the very best out of the hardware - on PC you never know what's going to be in the system so you risk alienating some of your audience if you optimise too heavily towards one graphics card: that's why both nvidia and AMD spend money on developer relations programs Plus a PC has to run a general purpose OS with lots of background stuff going on, so it's always going to be less efficient than you might expect. The gulf in terms of raw power is massive, but it's easier to extract the graphical goodies from a console...

[kalniel]

Professional developers only program what people pay them to program. Calling them lazy for doing their jobs is a bit odd, as I expect they work damn hard at it. The vast majority of games players aren't looking for the latest whizz bang PC graphics - they either want console versions or simpler things that work on a wide range of computers.

Looking at kickstarter there seems to be a resurgence in old school gaming, with the focus on gameplay and story over graphics. That's what people are willing to pay for, so that's what devs will make.

[Chadders87]

I agree with the post stating many games are made for old hardware in consoles first then prted across.

The difference lies with the modding community who seem more than capable of producing amazing things which blow the consoles away. The Skyrim HD pack was truly awesome!

[KeyboardDemon]

Professional developers only program what people pay them to program. Calling them lazy for doing their jobs is a bit odd, as I expect they work damn hard at it. The vast majority of games players aren't looking for the latest whizz bang PC graphics - they either want console versions or simpler things that work on a wide range of computers.

Good point and well made. As a person with a pretty decent setup I enjoy getting as much eye candy as my rig can handle and appreciate it when it goes above and beyond the average level of PC gaming graphics or stands head and shoulders above the console versions. But regardless of the level of 'exrta' refinement the PC versions of the games I buy get, I do appreciate an immersive and intensely satisfying gaming experience first, the graphics are the icing on the cake for me. As such I also enjoy gaming on my XBox as much as I do on my PC and really like games like Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012) where I can play on my console and then continue playing on my PC using the same game saves.

[crossy]

Professional developers only program what people pay them to program. Calling them lazy for doing their jobs is a bit odd, as I expect they work damn hard at it. The vast majority of games players aren't looking for the latest whizz bang PC graphics - they either want console versions or simpler things that work on a wide range of computers.

When I say "developers" I'm not necessarily speaking about - to use a Jonathon Coulton-ism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8S7QxpjeY) - the code monkeys. Instead I'm including the pointy-haired-bosses in that ... the "oh, if we just do a straight port then we'll save a shed load of dinero and then it's mega bonuses for all us 'executives'!". I fully expect that the code monkey's want to do the best job possible - no professional pride in doing something less? As a programmer (of sorts) myself, I know the appeal of doing something you can look back on with pride, rather than some that's merely "just good enough".

Problem is that, with games on both PC and console, it's only really the graphics and sound that can separate them. After all, it's not as if you can put in a new game mechanic to use the extra power that you might have available on that PC is it? So invariably (I'll argue) the PC gamer will place a lot more importance on the look of a title than his console-using compatriot would. Hence if your fancy SLi or Crossfire rig is only producing the same level of graphics as an XBox or PS3 on a title, then it's obvious that - like the OP - you're going to feel pretty short changed and angry.

On the other hand, when your PC title does - as is the case with some - come up with those jaw dropping visuals, then it makes it all worthwhile!

[Azazl187]

Pcs are really for games that use complex calculations every second. Play Supreme Commader on a massive map with 8 players for 8 hours.

Now that is pc graphics and gaming my friend

[kalniel]

Problem is that, with games on both PC and console, it's only really the graphics and sound that can separate them. After all, it's not as if you can put in a new game mechanic to use the extra power that you might have available on that PC is it?

Well yes actually. The only time you'd want the same game with graphics+ on the PC would be for shooters and the like. There are a whole bunch of games which don't make sense on the console - large scale strategy games, especially RTS, games with toolsets (try writing new AI methods for NWN on a console..), point and click adventures etc. etc.

Games whose only distinguishing feature is better graphics really don't interest me.

[crossy]

Pcs are really for games that use complex calculations every second. Play Supreme Commader on a massive map with 8 players for 8 hours.

Is that "8 hours" with, or without, bathroom breaks!
My osteo would have a blue fit if I gamed for that length of time.

Well yes actually. The only time you'd want the same game with graphics+ on the PC would be for shooters and the like. There are a whole bunch of games which don't make sense on the console - large scale strategy games, especially RTS, games with toolsets (try writing new AI methods for NWN on a console..), point and click adventures etc. etc. Games whose only distinguishing feature is better graphics really don't interest me.

Agree with the first part of that, but I'm failing to see the need for the high end graphics cards for RTS, and especially for PnC games. Unless, of course, you're doing something clever like offloading some of the game mechanic calculations to the GPU, or perhaps very high res desktop covering multiple monitors, (EyeFinity?).

I don't think many would buy a game just because it was "super graphics" - the exception being Crysis series, but then again maybe those were being bought to use as graphics benchmarks? On the other hand if you look at the original question you'll see it's a case of that you want a particular title, say the latest Call Of Duty, but why then is the undoubted graphical superiority of the PC not being used to any great extent?

Personally I still hold that this isn't necessarily the case. I was BF3'ing last night - trying to break my new 7970 - and I've got to say that the extra quality of the PC graphics DID make it a more "immersive" experience. Okay, counterbalancing that was the usual "wait 10 minutes for the PC to fire up, log in, get Origin running, get Battlelog up, and finally click "Play Campaign", whereas the console is just slap in the disk and get going.

Comes back to a question I got asked a while ago - if a title is available on console and PC , and you've got both, why should someone pick that title on PC as opposed to console? Better graphics and keener price were my answers.

[kalniel]

Whereas my answer is nearly always 'toolset' But that's just because I prefer creating content than playing it.

But the kind of games I like are not usually available on console. Strategy games tend to need more CPU power than GPU, but they have been offloading to GPU for a while now (eg CIV 5).

[ET3D]

I think that part of the issue is diminishing returns. There's just a point from which it takes a lot of work to make things look significantly better. If you're a graphics connoisseur you might feel the difference is significant, and if you're not then you won't think the difference is hugely significant.