Upcoming graphical powerhouses

[Carfax83]

Making this topic has really emphasized to me just how screwed PC gaming was by the last generation of consoles..

The 64 bit thing is particularly irksome. We've had access to 64 bit CPUs since 2003, and a 64 bit OS since 2005. But only now are developers starting to fully take advantage of the greatly increased memory address space afforded by 64 bit and that's solely due to the current gen consoles D:

Sure we've had 64 bit patches and what not, but that's nothing compared to games that are built from the ground up for 64 bit..

Although 64 bit has a minimal direct impact on graphics strictly speaking, it has HUGE implications for game design. 64 bit only titles like the Witcher 3, AC Unity, Batman Arkham City, Star Citizen with no last generation console or 32 bit fallback support are on a scale and seamlessness that we've never seen before..

Witcher 3 and AC Unity are great examples of this, featuring fully seamless gameplay with no loading screens despite their immense size. And then there's scale, detail and complexity. Everything can be bigger, more detailed and more complex with 64 bit, including map sizes, models, textures etcetera..

And although I'm not 100% certain, I think 64 bit also impacts other aspects of gaming like physics. So while many of us are anti-console, we should thank our lucky stars that the PS4 and Xbox One are using x86-64 technology :awe:

 

[Anomaly1964]

Most of us build our MONSTER GAMING RIGS for probably a minimum of around $1200 and in usually 2 months time, the core of our rigs, the video card, already has a new iteration come out that is better than its predecessor...

If you consider that the average cost for a console is around $400 and that it all you need for gaming for usually 4 years, it really does make one scratch their head, for me at least...

I cant believe it will be that much longer before consoles start getting pretty close to the kind of graphics maximizing that the human eye can see, not that some optimization test TELLS you that you are getting, but that you can actually notice...

If they came out with mouse and keyboard type controllers for consoles (as I mostly play shooters), I would probably make the switch, I LOVE how my 55 inch plasma television looks...

I know this may not EXACTLY fit in this thread but the convos did bring all this to mind...

**EDIT - I play game exclusively on the PC...

 

[futurefields]

I cant believe it will be that much longer before consoles start getting pretty close to the kind of graphics maximizing that the human eye can see, not that some optimization test TELLS you that you are getting, but that you can actually notice...

It will be a very long time, if ever, before consoles can approach whatever the top end graphics PC's can.

People are willing to put thousands of dollars of components which draw over a thousand watts of power into desktops.

Meanwhile consoles are trying to keep it below 150 watts and $400.

 

[Morgoth780]

Most of us build our MONSTER GAMING RIGS for probably a minimum of around $1200 and in usually 2 months time, the core of our rigs, the video card, already has a new iteration come out that is better than its predecessor...

If you consider that the average cost for a console is around $400 and that it all you need for gaming for usually 4 years, it really does make one scratch their head, for me at least...

I cant believe it will be that much longer before consoles start getting pretty close to the kind of graphics maximizing that the human eye can see, not that some optimization test TELLS you that you are getting, but that you can actually notice...

If they came out with mouse and keyboard type controllers for consoles (as I mostly play shooters), I would probably make the switch, I LOVE how my 55 inch plasma television looks...

I know this may not EXACTLY fit in this thread but the convos did bring all this to mind...

**EDIT - I play game exclusively on the PC...

Well, I must say I completely disagree with you.

There's certainly a noticeable difference in graphics quality between console games and (most) PC games. But the biggest problems I have with consoles is the sub 1080p resolution (which will get even worse when I pick up a 1440p/4k monitor - although I'm not sure when that will be) and the sub-60 fps.

I definitely there are still many improvements to be made in terms of graphics quality.

Also, you completely exaggerated how quickly hardware goes out of date. I'm still gaming on an HD 7950 (2 1/2 years old at this point) and it plays just about every game I want at High or Ultra on 1080p at 60 fps.

But I agree, I can't stand controllers, it's one of the reasons that I completely steer clear of consoles. Were that to change... maybe. Still doubtful.

 

[mmntech]

The whole PC versus console graphics debate is rather silly. You have to keep in mind they're two completely different markets. PC also isn't subjected to the same compromises that console markers face.

During the seventh console generation, they did use higher end hardware. The Cell in the PS3 was a very powerful CPU. Still is. The Xenon in the 360 was no slouch either. The GPUs used in both systems were higher end for the time as well. However, they were expensive.

The PS3 was $599 at launch, the 360 was $499. The PS3 was actually selling at a loss at that price too. Since then we've seemed to have settled on $399 being the sweet spot. Or at least that's the consumer expectation about what a console should cost. Lower prices really limit what kind of hardware you can use. So they went with mid-range, off the shelf components for this generation.

Heat was also a major issue in the seventh gen. Higher end hardware combined with the relative inefficiencies of the 90nm process sent a lot of consoles to an early grave. When you have a gaming desktop, you're dealing with a less cluttered environment. All the components have a lot of space to breath. My current rig has a total of nine fans keeping it cool right now. Three case, PSU, CPU, and two on each GPU card. My PS4 has one for the entire system. There's the expectation that consoles are kept small. They also tend to be crammed into entertainment centres, and are rarely cleaned. Furthermore, people expect them to be quiet. Which makes designing them tricky.

Gaming laptops have to go through the same number of compromises. Which is why they also tend to lack high end GPUs. They also tend to be obscenely expensive.

As for 4K, I don't think it's going to matter for the life of the 8th gen systems. 4K TV adoption is going to be slow. There's next to no content available, and TV networks aren't going to be upgrading their hardware anytime soon.

 

[toughtrasher]

GTA V won't be that big a deal since it's mostly remodeling a last gen game, but I'm excited to see what The Witcher 3 and Far Cry 4 can bring.

 

[Carfax83]

The whole PC versus console graphics debate is rather silly. You have to keep in mind they're two completely different markets. PC also isn't subjected to the same compromises that console markers face.

During the seventh console generation, they did use higher end hardware. The Cell in the PS3 was a very powerful CPU. Still is. The Xenon in the 360 was no slouch either. The GPUs used in both systems were higher end for the time as well. However, they were expensive.

The PS3 was $599 at launch, the 360 was $499. The PS3 was actually selling at a loss at that price too. Since then we've seemed to have settled on $399 being the sweet spot. Or at least that's the consumer expectation about what a console should cost. Lower prices really limit what kind of hardware you can use. So they went with mid-range, off the shelf components for this generation.

Heat was also a major issue in the seventh gen. Higher end hardware combined with the relative inefficiencies of the 90nm process sent a lot of consoles to an early grave. When you have a gaming desktop, you're dealing with a less cluttered environment. All the components have a lot of space to breath. My current rig has a total of nine fans keeping it cool right now. Three case, PSU, CPU, and two on each GPU card. My PS4 has one for the entire system. There's the expectation that consoles are kept small. They also tend to be crammed into entertainment centres, and are rarely cleaned. Furthermore, people expect them to be quiet. Which makes designing them tricky.

Gaming laptops have to go through the same number of compromises. Which is why they also tend to lack high end GPUs. They also tend to be obscenely expensive.

As for 4K, I don't think it's going to matter for the life of the 8th gen systems. 4K TV adoption is going to be slow. There's next to no content available, and TV networks aren't going to be upgrading their hardware anytime soon.

Stop, stop you're making too much sense!!

 

[Carfax83]

GTA V won't be that big a deal since it's mostly remodeling a last gen game, but I'm excited to see what The Witcher 3 and Far Cry 4 can bring.

I have no doubt that Rockstar will meet, or exceed expectations. They have the money, and more importantly the drive and passion to properly redo the assets for current gen systems and PC. They've already made a ton of money off of GTA V on last gen, so I'm sure they want a repeat for current gen and PC..

As for Witcher 3, looks like it's winning the poll. I always bet on the wrong horse

Witcher 3 is an excellent candidate for best graphics, but it doesn't have the sky high ambition of Star Citizen. Then again, Star Citizen's release date is as slippery as an eel..

I'm still a bit miffed that nobody has voted for AC Unity. Are you guys blind or something? D:

 

[gorcorps]

I could care less whether you hate the term, as it's completely applicable.

No it's not... PS4 and XB-one are the CURRENT GEN. If that's what you're talking about being in full swing, then you used the wrong term.

 

[Anomaly1964]

After reading what you guys have said, I do have to agree with you even more than myself (yeah, I can admit when I'm wrong)...


I have to admit, my GTX 570 from almost 3 years ago now is able to play most any game out there at top settings...

SO...............LONG LIVE PC GAMING!

 

[toughtrasher]

I have no doubt that Rockstar will meet, or exceed expectations. They have the money, and more importantly the drive and passion to properly redo the assets for current gen systems and PC. They've already made a ton of money off of GTA V on last gen, so I'm sure they want a repeat for current gen and PC..

As for Witcher 3, looks like it's winning the poll. I always bet on the wrong horse

Witcher 3 is an excellent candidate for best graphics, but it doesn't have the sky high ambition of Star Citizen. Then again, Star Citizen's release date is as slippery as an eel..

I'm still a bit miffed that nobody has voted for AC Unity. Are you guys blind or something? D:

Yeah I was surprised about Unity also. When I saw the trailer (yes it's just a trailer) I was awed at how beautiful they made it look.

 

[Carfax83]

No it's not... PS4 and XB-one are the CURRENT GEN. If that's what you're talking about being in full swing, then you used the wrong term.

Let me take one last stab at explaining why I used the term "next gen," and why I think it applies to PC gaming as well..

Basically, PC games courtesy of the current gen consoles have increased in scope, scale and complexity primarily due to the newfound emphasis on 64 bit..

Last year the only native 64 bit game was BF4, but this year there's a bunch of them, and next year there's going to be even more.. So the generational gap between games from last year and this year is pretty large, and it's all driven by software, not hardware.

So that's what I'm getting at when I said "next gen." For PC games, the next gen manifested as an advancement in software, not hardware. As I explained in an earlier post, we've had 64 bit capability on PCs for a long time now, but it was never taken advantage of by developers..

 

[Carfax83]

Yeah I was surprised about Unity also. When I saw the trailer (yes it's just a trailer) I was awed at how beautiful they made it look.

Did you see the 11 minute gameplay segment I posted on the first page?

Dat scale! And I think that was on an Xbox One dev kit so it should look much better running on a high end PC..

 

[CakeMonster]

I'm not a pc game developer, but I would think that it could make a lot of sense to develop for a minimum, something around:

64bit CPU (+ obviously OS)
8 Gb RAM
2 Gb VRAM
DX 11 support

You would ensure a much better game experience and need less in-game graphics options, ensuring that people had a minimum experience from the game that you approved of. I would also think that it would make texture design easier knowing everyone would get to see them the way you intended. You wouldn't have to worry about testing 32/64 and the limitations of them. And you don't have to give a crap about DX9 compatibility.

I'm sure there's some good reason that there's tons of backwards compatibility (despite that the hardware needing that is 7+ years old), but I'm not knowledgeably enough to know why...

 

[PliotronX]

Even though I'm not too into Witcher games, that thing looks like it's going to make 290's/780's cry for mama.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm still a bit miffed that nobody has voted for AC Unity. Are you guys blind or something? D:

Its an Ubi-Soft game. So it will definitely be locked to Uplay, be unplayable at launch, and struggle to maintain 30fps on even the highest end PCs. We've all been burned repeatedly by Ubi Soft in this regard.

 

[alcoholbob]

Even though I'm not too into Witcher games, that thing looks like it's going to make 290's/780's cry for mama.

Witcher 2 with Ubersampling and Crysis 3 already makes a 780ti cry for mama, its well under 60 fps at 1080p. More like 35-45fps currently.

 

[Morgoth780]

Witcher 2 with Ubersampling and Crysis 3 already makes a 780ti cry for mama, its well under 60 fps at 1080p. More like 35-45fps currently.

Ubersampling easily brings HD 7950 Crossfire into the 40s, and even mid 30s. At least from my own experience at 1080p.

 

[Carfax83]

Its an Ubi-Soft game. So it will definitely be locked to Uplay, be unplayable at launch, and struggle to maintain 30fps on even the highest end PCs. We've all been burned repeatedly by Ubi Soft in this regard.

I thought AC IV was optimized pretty well for PC, other than the 63 FPS limit. AC IV was done by the Ubisoft Kiev team.

Watch Dogs was done by the Montreal team, and that was absolutely disastrous on their part. Supposedly AC Unity PC will be done by Ubisoft Kiev team, so if AC IV was any indication, the quality should be much better than Watch Dogs..

 

[Malladine]

Remember when we worried if games would actually be FUN or not?

This.

 

[darkewaffle]

IMO graphics were 'good enough' years ago. With the march of technology the 'baseline' for graphics has advanced to the point where the draw of a game with "great graphics" is far diminished and the importance of controls/gameplay/features/story/etc has been enhanced. If a game looks like Guild Wars or Prince of Persia:Sands of Time and plays great, sign me up. If it looks like Crysis or BF4 but is uninspired or uninteresting, there's no way I'm buying or playing to just look at it.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm still a bit miffed that nobody has voted for AC Unity. Are you guys blind or something? D:

Nope, it's because Witcher 3 is much better than AC Unity and it makes it even more impressive given how large the game world is.

In AC Unity, there is an odd feeling that the characters and the rest of the world feel like they are from 2 different games, with characters simply interposed on top of the world. The shadows, reflections, animations and the way the characters interact with the world is current, not next generation. Even the buildings themselves are extravagant from an architectural point of view, not technical. Compare the stone work of walls in Witcher 3 to more or less flat surfaces with little to no tessellation in AC Unity.

When the main character moves, he casts little to no realistic shadows at all on the floor or walls of the buildings, his feet aren't even touching the stairs or parts of the architecture as he moves. It's almost like an old school Resident Evil game, just more detailed where the world is all pre-rendered and non-interactive (minus the doors) but the characters are on top of the world. It doesn't feel integrated well like Witcher 3.

In your AC Unity video, look at the 6 minute mark, when the character walks inside the building, it all feels so fake, no shadows, no reflections. They tried to make the world feel realistic but all the books, the items on the floors and ground are all non-interactive. Even when the character falls into the hay, there is 0 interaction with the physical material. At the 8 minute mark, the feet of the cat and the feet of the enemy he assassinates have serious clipping, further highlighting the feeling that the characters don't at all interact with the world, but are just imposed on top of it. The world doesn't feel alive whatsoever.

Even on a console, Witcher 3 is going to look better than AC Unity on the PC. At 6 minute mark, the swamp area feels a lot more life-like than Paris in AC Unity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ony2r0QFs

Look at the reflections, the way the grass interacts as you walk over it, the animations when Gerald slows down from running fast, how the lighting and shadows inside the buildings feel a lot more interactive. Even up close when Gerald speaks to other characters, when the characters talk and breathe, the armour/clothes on them move and have a more 3D effect/volume to them. In AC Unity, these items like collars, hoods and shoulders are static besides their face and some other minor items. There is no comparison whatsoever.

AC Unity hides its average game mechanics and lack of environmental interactivity by dropping hundreds of NPCs and making the world seem imposing by having tall structures. Witcher 3 is the size of Skyrim and every area in it is detailed with incredible attention to detail. For example, when Gerald runs in the forest at around the 10 minute mark, even when he encounters a log, he jumps over it as if it's a real obstruction. And then when he jumps to different elevations, there is a sound of leaves as he lands. As he walks through the forest, you can hear the flies and the sound of them varies depending on how they move relative to him! When he goes over bushes, they sway against him.

This.

Yup. There are some games like Bloodborne that look very unique. We really don't have anything like that on the PC. I don't really care if it doesn't run at 4K with TXAA, PhysX, etc.

 

[cmdrdredd]

IMO graphics were 'good enough' years ago. With the march of technology the 'baseline' for graphics has advanced to the point where the draw of a game with "great graphics" is far diminished and the importance of controls/gameplay/features/story/etc has been enhanced. If a game looks like Guild Wars or Prince of Persia:Sands of Time and plays great, sign me up. If it looks like Crysis or BF4 but is uninspired or uninteresting, there's no way I'm buying or playing to just look at it.

Why can't we have both? A Game made today should look like Crysis 3 but offer a story and characters and setting and game play that are top notch. No reason for it to be one or the other. I demand both.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Yeah never understood this argument that "Graphics are good enough". I disagree. Good graphics can help with immersion. Of course gameplay and design comes first, but if the developer has the budget then they should put some resources into making the game look good (and optimized).

The Witcher 3 looks like a perfect example. THe sheer detail and graphical excellence of the cities simply makes the city feel more lived in and "real".

 

[MichaelBarg]

The whole PC versus console graphics debate is rather silly. You have to keep in mind they're two completely different markets. PC also isn't subjected to the same compromises that console markers face.

This all makes me think that Kinect is a great tragedy. As an Xbox One owner I find it neat and useful, but not $100 useful. IIRC the tear downs said the BoM was likely in the $75 range. For an extra $75 in silicon they could have built a much more powerful machine. Possibly even enough to run their launch titles in native 1080p at 60fps.That would be great for consoles and for driving improvements in PC games. Absent a killer app for Kinect it sure seems like the wrong compromise. We'll get some great improvements nonetheless, but there could always be more.