WHy do the consoles have the best looking games?

Cows are so stupid. Whatever the current Sony console is doing is always "just right". lol

When the PS3 was the best they had, 720p (or lower) and 30fps (or lower) was "perfectly fine". Now 1080p (or lower) and 30fps is "perfectly fine". When they finally get 60fps in a future generation that will be "perfectly fine" too. lol

yeah,

so what are you on about?

Because there are other aspects of graphics besides resolution, as well. Things like texture resolution, particle effects, shading and lighting, animations, etc. But that doesn't mean that resolution doesn't matter. They all do. It's a balancing act. I thought I explained it pretty clearly in the above quoted post.

As another example of why higher resolutions are needed, look at texture resolution in modern games. Some aren't too hot, but most high-end-graphic games of recent years have high enough texture resolution (that is, the level of detail in the textures) that they actually lose detail when the final output resolution of the full picture is any less than 1080p.

Even Dark Souls, a game that certainly isn't winning any awards for technically stunning graphics, has high enough texture resolution that you don't see full detail when the output res is 720p. This is confirmed by the existence of the PC version. The PC version got a lot of shit for being a straight port. That is to say, the developer did absolutely nothing to improve the game for the PC version over the console versions. Which means, among other things, that the textures which are present in the PC version are identical to the textures used in the console versions. And yet, when you use the DSfix to increase the resolution to 1080p (from the 720p-ish res that the consoles used, and is the default for the PC version) you not only see less jaggies around edges, but you actually see more detail in the textures, as well. The textures are still exactly the same, but increasing the resolution of the final output image increases the level of detail visible in those very same textures. This means that they actually could have used lower-res textures in the console versions, because the output resolution was bottlenecking the texture detail anyway, and it would have been literally impossible to tell if the textures themselves were slightly lower-res.

And that's not uncommon, at all. Even Path of Exile, another game that isn't making a run for a graphics-king title, has textures that continue to reveal more detail up to 1440/1600p.

Bottom line is, again, there are many factors contributing to the image quality of a video game, including resolution. They can all be improved individually, but there is a limit to how effective improving one aspect can be, without improving the others with it. Generally, as graphics steadily improve, resolution is the factor that gets left behind, in between occasional leaps. This is most likely because increasing resolution comes with the added cost and hassle of needing to upgrade display equipment (monitors and TVs), rather than just rendering hardware and software. So, resolution is always playing leap-frog because nobody wants to have to buy a new monitor every time they buy a new video card. But that doesn't mean resolution can be left behind forever. It must increase periodically, to give the other graphic aspects more headroom to improve. That's why resolution standards have increased as much as they have in the last 20 years, and why they will continue to increase, albeit at a more staggered pace than things like effects and lighting.

Personally PC game look better while console games play better (if I could play every damn game with a controller I would), but that's just me

Hmm.. how is that? Every multiplat I have played on both console and PC has always played better on PC. Specifically because I often use a controller on a lot of action games like AC4 and CLoS, and the rock solid 60fps makes them much more responsive and just look and feel great to play.

0 ****** given about 60 fps

Then don't even begin to talk about games playing better. There are only three factors contributing to how a game plays:

1. the way the developers designed the gameplay, animation and user interface.

2. the actual physical controller and the way movement and game functions are mapped to controller.

3. the amount of latency in the controls (the amount of time between pressing a button or moving a stick and seeing the effect on screen).

The first two factors are the same between consoles and PC when using a gamepad on the later platform.

So the only factor that changes between consoles and PC, and is even under our control, is the amount of latency in the controller response. Which is demonstrably and unarguably better on the PC.

I will gladly fall on that sword and say that consoles games tend to have better graphics than PC games do. Multiplats depend entirely on what kind of rig you have and where the developers put most of their efforts. That's a wash and people will argue about for eternity. But if you look at console exclusives, it's almost staggering how far ahead console games are as a whole than PC games.

Most PC games are not that great looking, most of them are cheap and designed to run on 2-6 year old machines or even older. PC games are always held back several years by the programmers on purpose because most people do not have state-of-the-art machines. They have old dual-cores riddled with viruses and who knows what kind of GPU they are working with.

I was thinking about this one time I was playing God Of War 3, which came out almost 5 years ago and looks absurdly good. It's kinda low-rez, it's kinda jaggy, but the lighting and art direction help create an experience that feels like a film. I've hardly played any PC games, multi-plat or otherwise, that can even hold a candle to that 5 year old game, and that is one of many examples from this last generation. I cannot stress this enough times, visual quality has virtually nothing to do with platform. It has to do with artists, programmers, and designers who are extremely talented and skilled at what they do, and work really hard on it. Console publishers just have more money to hire these people, and in some cases allow them to learn from the hardware teams so that they can best utilize the system, another inherit advantage of consoles.

Well done. Boggles my mind that some people still seem to think that handheld controllers are somehow a console-exclusive feature.

Bigger budgets and better artistry

Arma, STALKER, Rome 2, Hawken, CoH 2, among others, plus countless multiplats which are actually made by the developers to look better on PC, say hi.

Just because you haven't played a game, or aren't a fan of a genre, doesn't mean they don't exist. Just because PC gets a lot of lower-spec indie games, doesn't mean the other games aren't there. It just means that the PC has far more games, and more variety. The general statement "console games look better than PC games" is false, has always been false, and always will be false. This is a fact. It is inarguable, and has been proven countless times. That's why nobody but fanboys and uninformed people even bother to argue it anymore.

Boggles my mind that derps like you think every PC game has controller support.

It looks great sure, but I dont see anything that couldnt be done on current consoles. Lower a bit the resolution and framerate and I'm sure it could run very well on the PS4/X1, without any major downgrade. And with some optimization, I'll say the consoles will show a more impressive game than SC later down the line. Atm, I say SF is a more visually (maybe not technically) stunning game than Crysis 3 on ultra. Optimization does wonders and last gen showed us that.

Every single game on PC can function with any controller, how well it does depends on what program you use to map the controller for games that don't have controller support. Xpadder is good from my experience.

As for modern multiplats with no controller support .. nah, i literally can't think of one, tho i'm sure there are some out there.

Most 'console games' are multiplats shared with PC. Except for Nintendo, there isn't that much focus on retail exclusivity. The 360 was extraordinarily poor in this situation. As for console exclusives, what's personally staggering is how safe and repetitive they can be. The same cinematic big budget action game formula spread across about four genres at most, if even that.

Thank God there are a lot of quality japanese companies pumping out great console games, and yeah, it is funny as hell seeing the usual diss consolites give Jp. If if weren't for Japan, console exclusives would be ridiculously generic, uninspiring and bland.

Ofcourse i am generalizing, there will always be exceptions, but look at the launch exclusive lineup of both the Xbox One and PS4. If that's the future of console exclusives, you can keep that future. To be fair, it's something expected considering how screwed up the current console market is due to publisher expectations in which you need to sell millions, otherwise you will die. Pretty bleak future tbh.

Console will never have superior graphics...it's literally impossible.

I can't think of one either. There are games that should not be played with a controller that have controller support however. I think that these console fanboys should be sat down in front of a gaming PC and someone should show them how to use it. And by show them how to use it I mean show them how to download steam and plug a controller into a USB port.

You must not play that many PC games cause there's a few that I can think of on the top of me head that don't have controller support or cant be played with a controller

*WoW

*LoL

*Dota 2

*DayZ standalone (it does support a controller but I've never heard of anyone actually using it since you have so many keybinds)

*Starcraft 2

So no, not every single PC game can function with a controller, the ones that do though are mostly multiplats

They don't... you just don't know what you're talking about, which makes sense from a poster called "Alienware Fan."

Oh c'mon, mentioning games that were specifically designed for the kb/m combo. But i guess its my fault for exagerating, i should have thought about them.

Be that as it may, i can still make any of them play with a controller by mapping the mouse to an analog stick. But i dunno if they'd be playable, i'm 100% sure they would not, specifically for LoL and DOTA2 due to the competitive nature of them, so ok.

Who would play an mmo or a moba with a controller? There isn't a controller with enough buttons for that.

1. PC can use controller with any game you'd want to use a controller with.

2. PC games run at higher fps.

3. PC games load faster.

4. Potential for mods and usually faster patches/support.

Factually speaking, PC games do play and look better than Console versions. And no one gives a shit about your opinion.

There are games that are designed specifically for kb/m and don't have controller support, those are mostly PC exclusives while multiplats most of the time can be played with a kb/m and or a controller. I have no idea why people think every PC game can be played with a controller, it would be like a console gamer saying every console game can run in 60 fps, in which this case we know both arguments are farce and not true. It's pretty much like this whole thread is a big over exaggerated bogus lie, we know for a fact PC games will look better than a console game cause they simply have better hardware to use, you can however say a console game looks good for a console, but saying it looks better than a PC game with a 780....oh please.

Funny coming from you, no one takes you seriously or cares about your opinion.

ALSO number 1 wrong, but again most of the shyt you say is wrong or stupid.

I only post facts sourced from data. My opinion is as irrelevant as yours.

@Alienware_fan: 1st party titles look great because their optimized specifically for a piece of hardware that may have already been out for awhile.

PCs generally aren't optimized as well constantly requiring better hardware every 3 years because of the diversity in video cards and processor types. But occasionally games do come along that are very well optimized, even on PC, not requiring too many resources, such as Borderlands 2. But Bioshock Infinite for example, could have been optimized better, and Call of Duty Ghosts outright made no attempt at optimization whatsoever.

Oh really

Can I play WoW, Hearthstone, LoL,Dota 2 (just to name a few) with a controller?

yes. it helps those games run in a windows operating system environment.

http://www.xpadder.com/

the only advantage pc has is resolution, which counts for nothing when its on a 15inch monitor.

Im fine with 720p as long as graphics/detail/framerate are all top notch.

Can you play a fighting game with a mouse and keyboard? You probably can. Why you would want to is beyond me.

1. Re-Read what I wrote on number1.

2. You said play better. WoW/DOTA play better w/ kb/m.

You're the moron for making a general statement about something that only applies in a small minority of cases and, even then, is purely subjective.

"Console games play better" is a generalized statement that, even if you only like gamepads, wouldn't be true since the vast majority of modern PC games can be played with a gamepad.

They don't. PC always wins with graphics.

@Ballroompirate: Playing any of those games with a controller would be pretty miserable, games like assassins creed or racing games definitely benefit from the option though

Sometimes I think you don't even realize what you say, but again you are the forum laughing stock so it shouldnt surprise me.

You pretty much remind me of a failed 4chan poster

You said games were best played on console.

But factually they are best played on PC.

Please learn logic and stop losing debates against me.

consoles win again.

Are you stupid?

Love how you try to imply what I said has no merit when it's generally known knowledge, not every PC game has controller support (exclusive wise) while games that are multiplat will generally have kb/m AND controller support since it's cross support/compatible.

Then you have those people who don't care about FPS, so if some people don't care about FPS then it can be presumed that those people don't care if the "superior pc version" looks good cause graphics don't matter to them and we all know gameplay > graphics so it's pretty much play on what you will (PC or console) when it comes down to play style. If this debate was about graphics only, we all know PC version of game > console version of game, it's a known fact since PC games can always reach their full made potential compared to the out dated and limited console hardware, but this whole debate is if every PC game has controller support, which NOT ALL OF THEM DO and if you're one of those people that believe that, congrats you're up there with those people who think you need to spend $2,000-$3,000 on a avg PC.

My 8 core FX-8320, 8 GB, and Radeon 7870 OCed just s*** its pants... wow...

Never claimed they do. But every game that anyone would ever actually want to use a controller for has controller support. Do you actually want to play Starcraft 2 or DOTA or LoL with a controller? If you do, you can, actually. You can set up a controller to literally map anything you want. Analog stick to move mouse cursor, face buttons for mouse buttons, whatever you want. That would be stupid as shit, but you could do it. So yeah, kalipekona's statement is still true. There are only 3 things that contribute to how well a game plays, and only 1 of those things even differs between a console and a PC. And the one that differs is factually and unarguably better on PC, unless your PC is weak as shit.