905 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

Rubios wrote...

Seival wrote...

Maybe you just lack the ability to search nice screenshots?

Those are renders honey, not screenshots.

You'll have to wait for PS5 (or PS6) to see that stuff in-game.

Maybe you should launch K:SF on PS4 and observe its graphics directly, instead of watching the game on YouTube?
Seriously, you have no idea what are you talking about.

[spirosz]

Are you saying my Monitor is inferior to a 1080p TV?

[GreyLycanTrope]

ruggly wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


What's this from if you don't mind me asking?

Skyrim mod.

Damn that's nice.

[spirosz]

Also Seival, I acknowledge your claim on Killzone being a graphical powerhouse, it is - let's get that out of the way. It is not the best out right now - but it is one of the top contenders and there is no denying that.

[Seival]

spirosz wrote...

Are you saying my Monitor is inferior to a 1080p TV?

I'm saying that there are no uncompressed videos on YouTube.

[AresKeith]

Greylycantrope wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


What's this from if you don't mind me asking?

Skyrim mod.

Damn that's nice.

The chick or the graphics 

[spirosz]

AresKeith wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


What's this from if you don't mind me asking?

Skyrim mod.

Damn that's nice.

The chick or the graphics 

I see what you did there.  

[spirosz]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Even so, graphics don't mean much. I mean, sure, good graphics are nice, but they are hardly a requirement for a good game. 1080p was built on the back of 8bit.

The argument that has been going on is that better graphics = a better overall game, which is basically what everyone here is disagreeing with.  

[TEWR]

K:SF certainly looks impressive, but I wouldn't say that console games are better graphically then PC games as a general rule. Perhaps there could be exceptions, but that's about it. Console games can be impressive looking (in fact, they often are) but playing the same game on the PC will render it better.

I don't know much about PCs -- hell, I don't know much about games period other then that they're a thing meant to be played =P -- but the PCs are constantly improving, be it from companies or the people that use them. So they're always going to be a step above the rest.

Does that mean consoles could never catch up to PC gaming or surpass them? Well, I wouldn't say that, but it'd probably take a long time to do so and might require some things to be sacrificed.

But I wouldn't know.

Though I'm curious what some of the more PC oriented folk think about that. Could consoles catch up? If so, how?

[spirosz]

That is why I brought up games with a different art style, like LIMBO or Journey - both very moving games, both very different and should be approached with an open mindset, but certain people choose not to because it's either not a Sony exclusive (which Journey is, so I don't get that <---) and it's not living up to the "graphical" hype that there should be.

[GreyLycanTrope]

AresKeith wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

ruggly wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...


What's this from if you don't mind me asking?

Skyrim mod.

Damn that's nice.

The chick or the graphics 

Both, I'm a greedy pirate.

[CroGamer002]

spirosz wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Even so, graphics don't mean much. I mean, sure, good graphics are nice, but they are hardly a requirement for a good game. 1080p was built on the back of 8bit.

The argument that has been going on is that better graphics = a better overall game, which is basically what everyone here is disagreeing with.  

But the RYSE: Sons of Rome is totally teh best game evur!!!

Look at it's shiny graphics!

[Br3admax]

More importantly, we're also showing that next-gen won't even have the superior graphics that Seival claims that they will.

[spirosz]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Alright lets kill this noise tbh. Sevial, better hardware = better capability for graphics. When you are playing a game you have a computer drawing pictures on the screen every second. The graphics card(and pipeline) will determine how quick that is done on the screen. This is why you hear about MHZ or GHz they denote how many instructions can be done in a given time frame. With PC games you have them working for a device that is easily upgradable(alas Von Neuman architecture) with the PlayStation they are specialized and the hardware that you get now will probably be the hardware that you will stick with for a longer time now. Console graphics will be outdated in a few months even being next gen or not while NVidia will continue raping systems with it's Titan project.

Tl;DR Better hardware == Better capability for higher graphics.

Don't bring logic here, troll. 

[AresKeith]

TipsLeFedora wrote...

Alright lets kill this noise tbh. Sevial, better hardware = better capability for graphics. When you are playing a game you have a computer drawing pictures on the screen every second. The graphics card(and pipeline) will determine how quick that is done on the screen. This is why you hear about MHZ or GHz they denote how many instructions can be done in a given time frame. With PC games you have them working for a device that is easily upgradable(alas Von Neuman architecture) with the PlayStation they are specialized and the hardware that you get now will probably be the hardware that you will stick with for a longer time now. Console graphics will be outdated in a few months even being next gen or not while NVidia will continue raping systems with it's Titan project.

Tl;DR Better hardware == Better capability for higher graphics.

But PC should be used for work and not gaming 

[ruggly]

spirosz wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Even so, graphics don't mean much. I mean, sure, good graphics are nice, but they are hardly a requirement for a good game. 1080p was built on the back of 8bit.

The argument that has been going on is that better graphics = a better overall game, which is basically what everyone here is disagreeing with.  

Haven't played it myself, but I've read that Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is an amazing story.  Graphics look a bit cartoony, and they don't even really say anything.  But apparently a lack of those two things make the game horrible overall.

[TEWR]

J. Reezy wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Better than Beyond. AGAIN.

Welp, if I ever needed a reason to get a computer that can actually run games, this is probably it. I thought Skyrim was pretty to look at before. Those Skyrim images make me feel inadequate.

Though there is the Witcher series that still acts as a paperweight for me.

I wonder... I'm looking to get a new laptop. Are there any that could run games without lag or interference in the graphical fidelity?

I know that feel. I've been researching decent gaming PCs for a while now.

I've been out of the PC gaming thing for so long that I don't even remember what to look for. I used to be a hardcore PC gamer as a kid, but with all the other **** I've focused on since then consoles became easier for me to use to play games.

But I just really want a PC, or laptop, that can play games like the Witcher, the Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dragon Age, etc. without imploding upon itself.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

spirosz wrote...

Also Seival, I acknowledge your claim on Killzone being a graphical powerhouse, it is - let's get that out of the way. It is not the best out right now - but it is one of the top contenders and there is no denying that.

You are wrong, Spirosz, you're confused.

[spirosz]

ruggly wrote...

spirosz wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Even so, graphics don't mean much. I mean, sure, good graphics are nice, but they are hardly a requirement for a good game. 1080p was built on the back of 8bit.

The argument that has been going on is that better graphics = a better overall game, which is basically what everyone here is disagreeing with.  

Haven't played it myself, but I've read that Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is an amazing story.  Graphics look a bit cartoony, and they don't even really say anything.  But apparently a lack of those two things make the game horrible overall.

...damn - requires a controller to play on PC.  

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Even so, graphics don't mean much. I mean, sure, good graphics are nice, but they are hardly a requirement for a good game. 1080p was built on the back of 8bit.

I doubt anyone here (except Seival) would argue with this. It's just funny because he places graphics at the top of his priority list when it comes to games, then claims he is a console gamer because the graphics are superior on consoles compared to PCs. It's the reason why he claims KZ: SF is such a good game, because it has the "best" graphics.

Even more hilariously, he is anti-mod. Despite the fact that mods are one of the reasons that the gulf between PC and Console graphics is so large. 

also

even new vegas looks pretty damn good with the right mods

Modifié par CrustyBot, 18 décembre 2013 - 12:32 .