Multiplatform Games on PC

I know this isn't the case with all multiplatform games, but some of them look no better on PC than on console. For example, I've played RE5 on PS3, XBOX 360, and PC, and the PC version looked no better than the console versions (though it did run better). My experience was the same with Dead Space. Would it cost these developers so much more effort and money to take advantage of what PC has to offer?

The following are screencaptures of Dead Space 3 running on my PC with all settings set to the max at 1920x1080. Look at how terrible the textures are. No PC game should look this bad. It's not as if my PC is a slouch, especially for this game.

My specs:

• Intel Core i7 920 Quad Core
• Asus P6T SE Motherboard
• 3 x 2GB OCZ 1600 DDR3 RAM
• ATI Radeon HD 5870
• Samsung Spinpoint 500 GB HDD
• Western Digital 1TB HDD
• Corsair 750 Watt PSU
• Antec Dark Fleet Medium Tower
• Asus 24" LED Monitor @ 1920 x 1080

really? i didnt play re 5 on consoles but i played re 6 and dead space and when i played them on pc i could see the differences by far.

Need to take the fanboy goggles off to see the image clearly?

The resolution bump, FPS difference and AA make a huge difference for starters.  That's standard regardless of game.  

Take off the fanboy goggles.

Dead Space and RE5 looked like poop on PC. Neither game took advantage of PC's larger memory/ bandwidth, which resulted in flat, low resolution textures that look horrible at 1920 x 1080. 

Dead Space and RE5 looked like poop on PC. Neither game took advantage of PC's larger memory/ bandwidth, which resulted in flat, low resolution textures that look horrible at 1920 x 1080. 

BluRayHiDef

Nothing but claims.

This seems to be a troll thread mates

This seems to be a troll thread mates

guard12

either that or the guy needs this glasses

This seems to be a troll thread mates

guard12

Get a monitor larger than 720p

RE5 on the PC ran at 60fps at 1080p with AA. It didn't have extra graphical assets but the game had a much sharper and cleaner image while ruining at a much higher framerate.

This is often the case with multiplats. Some will be bad and limit the framerate to 30 and have horrible control options. Some times the PC version has more graphical assets and different rendering on top of everything else. Differs from game to game. In general the PC version is usually the best unless the dev really screws up somewhere.

Get a monitor larger than 720p

wis3boi

They look different to me. Especially RE6!

I edited the OP to include screencaptures that demonstrate my point. 

You're using jpgs?O_o

If you find any game, ever, that doesn't look any better on PC than on consoles, it was a terrible port, AND you didn't turn the resolution up enough. Fact.

You're using jpgs?O_o

mitu123

Resident Evil 5?

Gotta be joking. I distinctly remember being blown away by it with a Radeon 5770 compared to the Xbox 360. Then I got a 7850 and maxed it out completely, visually it was much better. 

Not really interested in the whole pixel counting thing - but when you're watching the PC version being played on a capable graphics card it looks well and truly above and beyond the Xbox 360 version. 

TC I only notice this on the Wii U version of multiplats compared to PC. PC just can't keep up without a controller with an integrated second screen. See - Trine 2. 

:cool:

Resident Evil 5?

Gotta be joking. I distinctly remember being blown away by it with a Radeon 5770 compared to the Xbox 360. Then I got a 7850 and maxed it out completely, visually it was much better. 

Not really interested in the whole pixel counting thing - but when you're watching the PC version being played on a capable graphics card it looks well and truly above and beyond the Xbox 360 version. 

psymon100

RE5 has the exact same assets in all versions. Only the resolution and framerate is different, I think it even had MSAA on consoles.

RE5 has the exact same assets in all versions. Only the resolution and framerate is different, I think it even had MSAA on consoles.

glez13

That's all fine, and that's all compatible with what I'm saying. RE5 a 5770 vs an Xbox 360, I've seen it with my own eyes simultaneously on two of the exact same model televisions - PC version looks obviously superior. Even if all the differences are coming from resolution and frame rate, looks are a subjective thing and I certainly noticed a big boost. 

But certainly if one were comparing screenshots of one to screenshots of the other, ah well the differences might not appear so apparent. 

wat

Even Dark Souls looks visibly better than console versions, and the DSFix doesn't help your argument none. Durr

The non gamer equalivilant of bragging about how awesome your pc's graphics are compared to console versions.

But seriously. Who cares? Besides you of course.

Dishonored won a ton of awards and praised for its gameplay mechanics, story, morla choices, voice acting, fun weapons and abilities. Nothing about its graphics really. Yes the PC version looked better but all of the reasons as to why it got so much praise stayed exactly the same no matter if you play it on a ps3 or a pc. Same thing with walking, loved for its characters and story, didnt matter to anyone if the PC version looked better.

Good graphics do not equal good game. Well, unless your crytek then all you have is good graphics.

I used to be able to see the differences PC made around 2004-2006. I'm -6.25 in both eyes and am having trouble seeing any major differences now aside from resolution (amount of jaggies when AA is off) and framerate. It's getting to the point where I'm happy playing at medium settings for that extra 15 fps when I can't see the improvements.foxhound_fox

There really isn't a large difference between low and ultra settings in PC games these days. It really has nothing to do with your eyes, it's just the way PC games are now.

The non gamer equalivilant of bragging about how awesome your pc's graphics are compared to console versions.

 

 

 

 

But seriously. Who cares? Besides you of course.

 

Dishonored won a ton of awards and praised for its gameplay mechanics, story, morla choices, voice acting, fun weapons and abilities. Nothing about its graphics really. Yes the PC version looked better but all of the reasons as to why it got so much praise stayed exactly the same no matter if you play it on a ps3 or a pc. Same thing with walking, loved for its characters and story, didnt matter to anyone if the PC version looked better.

 

Good graphics do not equal good game. Well, unless your crytek then all you have is good graphics.

Gargus

What are you talking about? People loved Dishonored's stylized graphics/art style. It was one of the things most commonly praised about the game. Oh, and there's nothing inherently problematic with the gameplay in a lot of Crytek games (not including Ryse, which we don't even know for sure will be bad); the gunplay was solid and enjoyable, just not all that unique or amazing. People just didn't like that they abandoned the open world element in favor of the more traditonal, linear corridor shooter style. 

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

Resident Evil 5?

Gotta be joking. I distinctly remember being blown away by it with a Radeon 5770 compared to the Xbox 360. Then I got a 7850 and maxed it out completely, visually it was much better. 

Not really interested in the whole pixel counting thing - but when you're watching the PC version being played on a capable graphics card it looks well and truly above and beyond the Xbox 360 version. 

glez13

RE5 has the exact same assets in all versions. Only the resolution and framerate is different, I think it even had MSAA on consoles.

[QUOTE="Gargus"]

The non gamer equalivilant of bragging about how awesome your pc's graphics are compared to console versions.

But seriously. Who cares? Besides you of course.

Dishonored won a ton of awards and praised for its gameplay mechanics, story, morla choices, voice acting, fun weapons and abilities. Nothing about its graphics really. Yes the PC version looked better but all of the reasons as to why it got so much praise stayed exactly the same no matter if you play it on a ps3 or a pc. Same thing with walking, loved for its characters and story, didnt matter to anyone if the PC version looked better.

Good graphics do not equal good game. Well, unless your crytek then all you have is good graphics.

cfisher2833

What are you talking about? People loved Dishonored's stylized graphics/art style. It was one of the things most commonly praised about the game. Oh, and there's nothing inherently problematic with the gameplay in a lot of Crytek games (not including Ryse, which we don't even know for sure will be bad); the gunplay was solid and enjoyable, just not all that unique or amazing. People just didn't like that they abandoned the open world element in favor of the more traditonal, linear corridor shooter style.

Yes a ton of people did love the graphics art style. Style has nothing to do with the PC somehow being better because its graphics were better. Dishonored had the exact same art style regardless of which version you played. City looked the same, people looked the same, weapons looked the same because it was the same art style. I really fail to see why you bothered replying to me because you completely bypassed my point just so you could change it entirely and create a argument that had nothing to do at all with what I said.

Yes, Im sure some people loved crysis gameplay but lets be honest, how many times do you see people talking about crysis that talk about gameplay, story, mechanics and such vs how many people talk about its graphics? There are dozens of shooters out there with vastly better gameplay that also have better stories, better characters, are more imaginative that just guns and aliens, better replay value, and so on. Even to this day people still only refer to crysis 1 when talking about graphics. The only time you really hear about 2 or 3 is the occasional graphics comparrison to something else. Far cry? No one talks about those games. Except far cry 3 which was not made by crytek. And yes ryse isnt out, but the only people you see talking anything good about is crytek themselves. All crytek has is graphics, thats pretty much it.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

You're using jpgs?O_o

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="cfisher2833"]

[QUOTE="Gargus"]

The non gamer equalivilant of bragging about how awesome your pc's graphics are compared to console versions.

 

 

 

 

 

But seriously. Who cares? Besides you of course.

 

Dishonored won a ton of awards and praised for its gameplay mechanics, story, morla choices, voice acting, fun weapons and abilities. Nothing about its graphics really. Yes the PC version looked better but all of the reasons as to why it got so much praise stayed exactly the same no matter if you play it on a ps3 or a pc. Same thing with walking, loved for its characters and story, didnt matter to anyone if the PC version looked better.

 

Good graphics do not equal good game. Well, unless your crytek then all you have is good graphics.

Gargus

What are you talking about? People loved Dishonored's stylized graphics/art style. It was one of the things most commonly praised about the game. Oh, and there's nothing inherently problematic with the gameplay in a lot of Crytek games (not including Ryse, which we don't even know for sure will be bad); the gunplay was solid and enjoyable, just not all that unique or amazing. People just didn't like that they abandoned the open world element in favor of the more traditonal, linear corridor shooter style.

Yes a ton of people did love the graphics art style. Style has nothing to do with the PC somehow being better because its graphics were better. Dishonored had the exact same art style regardless of which version you played. City looked the same, people looked the same, weapons looked the same because it was the same art style. I really fail to see why you bothered replying to me because you completely bypassed my point just so you could change it entirely and create a argument that had nothing to do at all with what I said.

Not remotely true. Instead of the art style being ruined with horrendous aliasing, blurry textures, and low pixel count (ie lower resolution), the PC version allowed the art style to truly shine. It's like saying that looking at a painting on some shitty 720p monitor is the same experience as seeing that painting in real life. Powerful hardware doesn't make a game good, but it can allow the artistic vision of the creators to be more fully realized. 

Yes, Im sure some people loved crysis gameplay but lets be honest, how many times do you see people talking about crysis that talk about gameplay, story, mechanics and such vs how many people talk about its graphics? There are dozens of shooters out there with vastly better gameplay that also have better stories, better characters, are more imaginative that just guns and aliens, better replay value, and so on. Even to this day people still only refer to crysis 1 when talking about graphics. The only time you really hear about 2 or 3 is the occasional graphics comparrison to something else. Far cry? No one talks about those games. Except far cry 3 which was not made by crytek. And yes ryse isnt out, but the only people you see talking anything good about is crytek themselves. All crytek has is graphics, thats pretty much it.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

You're using jpgs?O_o

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="glez13"]

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

Resident Evil 5?

Gotta be joking. I distinctly remember being blown away by it with a Radeon 5770 compared to the Xbox 360. Then I got a 7850 and maxed it out completely, visually it was much better. 

Not really interested in the whole pixel counting thing - but when you're watching the PC version being played on a capable graphics card it looks well and truly above and beyond the Xbox 360 version. 

tagyhag

RE5 has the exact same assets in all versions. Only the resolution and framerate is different, I think it even had MSAA on consoles.

Some games look the same, some games look better. Some games look way way better.

All games run and load better.

Nearly all multiplats are better on PC.

Even if the textures stay the same, full HD and 60 fps is unmatchable.

I know this isn't the case with all multiplatform games, but some of them look no better on PC than on console. For example, I've played RE5 on PS3, XBOX 360, and PC, and the PC version looked no better than the console versions (though it did run better). My experience was the same with Dead Space. Would it cost these developers so much more effort and money to take advantage of what PC has to offer?

The following are screencaptures of Dead Space 3 running on my PC with all settings set to the max at 1920x1080. Look at how terrible the textures are. No PC game should look this bad. It's not as if my PC is a slouch, especially for this game.

My specs:

• Intel Core i7 920 Quad Core
• Asus P6T SE Motherboard
• 3 x 2GB OCZ 1600 DDR3 RAM
• ATI Radeon HD 5870
• Samsung Spinpoint 500 GB HDD
• Western Digital 1TB HDD
• Corsair 750 Watt PSU
• Antec Dark Fleet Medium Tower
• Asus 24" LED Monitor @ 1920 x 1080

 

BluRayHiDef

This is exactly what PS3 owners have been asking for 7 years...

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I know this isn't the case with all multiplatform games, but some of them look no better on PC than on console. For example, I've played RE5 on PS3, XBOX 360, and PC, and the PC version looked no better than the console versions (though it did run better). My experience was the same with Dead Space. Would it cost these developers so much more effort and money to take advantage of what PC has to offer?

The following are screencaptures of Dead Space 3 running on my PC with all settings set to the max at 1920x1080. Look at how terrible the textures are. No PC game should look this bad. It's not as if my PC is a slouch, especially for this game.

My specs:

• Intel Core i7 920 Quad Core
• Asus P6T SE Motherboard
• 3 x 2GB OCZ 1600 DDR3 RAM
• ATI Radeon HD 5870
• Samsung Spinpoint 500 GB HDD
• Western Digital 1TB HDD
• Corsair 750 Watt PSU
• Antec Dark Fleet Medium Tower
• Asus 24" LED Monitor @ 1920 x 1080

MoneySha

This is exactly what PS3 owners have been asking for 7 years...

Dead Space and RE5 looked like poop on PC. Neither game took advantage of PC's larger memory/ bandwidth, which resulted in flat, low resolution textures that look horrible at 1920 x 1080. 

BluRayHiDef

WRONG.

99% of multiplat games run and look better on PC.

If the OP isn't just trolling/fakeboying....

(which he likely is)...

I highly recommend seeing an optermitrist IRL. Not even messing with you or trying to be funny. :|

I know this isn't the case with all multiplatform games, but some of them look no better on PC than on console. For example, I've played RE5 on PS3, XBOX 360, and PC, and the PC version looked no better than the console versions (though it did run better). My experience was the same with Dead Space. Would it cost these developers so much more effort and money to take advantage of what PC has to offer?

The following are screencaptures of Dead Space 3 running on my PC with all settings set to the max at 1920x1080. Look at how terrible the textures are. No PC game should look this bad. It's not as if my PC is a slouch, especially for this game.

My specs:

• Intel Core i7 920 Quad Core
• Asus P6T SE Motherboard
• 3 x 2GB OCZ 1600 DDR3 RAM
• ATI Radeon HD 5870
• Samsung Spinpoint 500 GB HDD
• Western Digital 1TB HDD
• Corsair 750 Watt PSU
• Antec Dark Fleet Medium Tower
• Asus 24" LED Monitor @ 1920 x 1080BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="glez13"]

RE5 has the exact same assets in all versions. Only the resolution and framerate is different, I think it even had MSAA on consoles.

JangoWuzHere

Even if the textures stay the same, full HD and 60 fps is unmatchable.

realguitarhero5