Don't talk crap with the drama queen nonsense? You started it when you suggested devs gimp the PC version to cater to consoles. Stay consistent, don't just pick and choose stuff that fits your opinion.
I've seen developers say the same things dozens upon dozens of times over the years with every console generation, so in no way am I singling out anyone. And they have all been truthful and accurate according to the paper specs like I've mentioned. And in a perfect development world the end result would reflect that. I feel like I'm repeating myself here a bit too much here. No one is denying development on PC hardware comes with additional overhead. It's common knowledge.
It's not a conspiracy. Developers will speak highly (and some non-sense) of consoles, because they are the mainstream gaming devices that everyone uses, and more so in this case since the devs are re-releasing a game that is targeted for those platforms... More so than the PC. He's a tech specialist and a salesman. You think it would affect game sales if he said the game will look identical to the ps3/360 versions just with a higher framerate? Hell yeah! He better talk it up as much as possible so people will buy it again at full price. Not a salesman my @ss! And the part of the quote that you used is true. He did say comparable PC, which is a PC from 2010 or 2011 (if your lucky) when you look at how many TFLOPS the PS4's GPU pumps out. Still doesn't match the 5TFLOP cards PCs use today. Well that is your opinion, just like it was your opinion Metro LL was "architecturated" around the ps3/360. Case closed. You're entitle to an opinion. Doesn't make it correct.
I never tried to pass my opinion as anything more than that. I strongly suspect LL has been architectured on last gen consoles, and the fact that the PC shares its assets with it leads me to believe I'm correct. http://www.eurogamer.***/articles/2013-05-15-metro-last-light-triple-format-comparison-gallery I'm not seeing a generational gap here. You make it sound like everyone has a 5tflops GPU.....Yeah this is the extreme minority. The argument never was that consoles could push ahead of today's best hardware but that they punch waaaaay above their performance weight. On consoles you get more with less, on PC less with more. I don't understand how some people get riled up by his most likely valid claims. It's not like we did know that PC "efficiency" is extremely questionable.
I don`t think that LL`s engine is completely new. I think it is updated 4ATech engine used in 2033. And that engine is multiplatform one. Which means all platforms use big common source code of engine plus thinner platform-specific layer. Talking about architecturing around one platform... Edit: About 4ATech engine from interview At the first page of interview Shishkovtsov noted that the future engine was started as personal project while he was working in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. team. And the latter has no console versions and we don`t know whether Shishkovtsov had experience in console architecture at all at that time. Edit2: It is all about engine. Obviously it was designed for PC. But I don`t know how much of technical design is needed for a game itself (apart from engine).
Maybe PC was the lead SKU then, my mistake. I seem to recall having read that somewhere but I can't find the link anyway. Unfortunately, that really does not change the fact that the game is a 360/PS3 game through and through. It's absolutely remarquable how the 360/PS3 hold up versus the PC version. I'm not expecting this to change in the near future, consoles are where the money is after all. At best we can hope for a few additional effects here and here but not a remake of assets/lighting/character models/levels. PC versions will look better thanks to a bump in resolution.
At least we can say that they did great job with console versions. Edit: In the same article: So not only resolution...
They did well indeed, by console standards at least. Now I expected better for the PC version to be honest. I wasn't talking about Last Light, but future PC ports of next-gen games. The resolution will be the main factor, at same resolution PS4/PC will be nearly identical because the added effects on PC to my eyes don't make much of a difference; it's just way too subtle.
Nah, he can't speak true. I mean I've been told he is a saleman. Obviously he knows nothing about tech, neither does Carmack. http://www.eurogamer.***/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/436012673243693056
I'm starting to think perhaps you just like playing the contrarian in these discussions. Because after resolution increases most ports come with additional AA options which also make a pretty large difference in image quality. Arguably as large a difference as resolution makes. We really should include framerate as well. The difference between 30 and 60 is significant, nevermind 30 and 120. As for the other effects and options, if can be difficult to see their impact individually. It usually takes a game with many additional effects to make a large, noticeable impact. Something like Tomb Raider or Crysis 3. At any rate, you're starting to come across like many of those I've seen over the years not being able to see the difference in image quality between DVD movie quality (480p) and Blu Ray (1080p). Just because it doesn't matter to you, doesn't make it non existent. If you really are that disappointed in the PC side of things, I recommend you abandon this platform and purchase a console. I think you'll be much happier. This is also the point where experience has shown me that each generation starts the same way as this one. Only difference is this time, the PC platform is far more advanced on the hardware side of things due to the absurd length of last generation. In the past, the new consoles and PC were very close side by side and slowly drifted away from each other as the PC advanced on both the hardware and software side of things as the generation progressed. While the PS4 and xbone seem to be able to handle a good deal of the PC software tech side of things that are currently available, we'll see that change over the next few years. It's always the same. This generation will be no different.
Kezen, is your PS4 connected to your T.V. or computer monitor? And the same for your PC; do you game with your PC connected to the T.V. or monitor?
For comparisons purposes both are connected to my monitor (Asus VH238H) and this is how I was actually impressed how PS4 games look. I mean....I was not expecting that from a 1.84ftlops GPU. Guess there is truth to what Oles and Carmack said. Resolution increases yield significant results but they are not the main driver of visual fidelity in my humble opinion. Asset and effect quality is. Framerate has nothing to do with this. I never claimed resolution didn't matter at all but once again I want improvements where it makes the most difference, that is in the purely graphics department. Asset, lighting, textures, shaders and all that jazz. I played AC4 at 3840*2160 on a four Titans in SLI, well it's pretty clear that the assets were never made with that resolution in mind so I wasn't terribly impressed. That would not make a lick of sense. The situation on consoles is worse in the sens that you can't do anything to get away of cursory jobs. On PC, at least I have the option to put some money on the table and buy a more powerful GPU. Sure, it won't improve the visuals by itself if devs have not thought that far ahead but it will still be a better experience. I will most certainly get the PS4 version of Watch Dogs thanks to a friend for comparison purposes and my stance has not changed : I think the maxed PC version will look very, very close. Identical barring some Nvidia stuff actually. Same goes for LL Redux. I would hope so. Nvidia and AMD won't be able to sell 500$ GPUs if the tech does not make tremendous strides on the PC side. Resolution alone won't suffice, PC games (multiplats or otherwise) will need to have impressive bells and whistles for AMD and Nvidia to make their offering relevant.
Well of course there's truth to what Carmack said, it's true. No one has denied that, yet you keep harping on it like we dismissed it as nonsense. If you have difficulty seeing the difference between console release vs PC ports then I don't know what to say. Most see it clear as day in most cases and is a large part of why they chose PC over consoles. You say framerate has nothing to do with visuals, most would disagree with you there as well. The higher the framerate the more impressive those bells and whistles come across. At least those that aren't static. Fluidiity has a pretty serious impact on the visual experience for most people. As the quality of those assets and effects increases, you need resolution to increase along side them or there is no point. At any rate, your whinge has been noted. All of the little pieces add up to a superior experience. It doesn't get any better unfortunately. As long as consoles exist and are more profitable, the PC will always be held back.
Many would disagree to factor framerate in graphics discussions as well. I don't have difficulty noticing visual discrepencies between PC and 7th gen consoles, but 8th is totally different. AC4 PC vs PS4 for instance. Even in the case of 7th gen consoles I would not say the difference is generational at all. To me, a "generational leap" is Far Cry-Crysis. True, and I hope assets will drastically improve on the PC side. I'm not happy with this state of affairs but that's woefully true. We take solace in the fact that Nvidia and AMD will entice devs to push the PC more in the future.
Dunno whats the deal here again, but Metro series was meant to be a PC game and then ported to xbox, etc later. The makers are from ex-Stalker team, so no wonder it has a lot of this gfx vibe from there.. Metro2033 runs great here @ 1080p, v.high, no msaa, with physx, same with MetroLL there I could max it completely, expect SSAA. Although gfx are not the best, characters are kinda plastic looking.. If Metro3 targets next-gen then it will look only better, hopefully they will get rid of this plastic look and enhance the lighting further (global illumination, etc), less "cartoony" look and add more detail to the world.
Shame that systemically the game was designed for consoles. That's not what I'd call a PC game but whatever. I get 32fps with everything maxed (MSAAx4, DX11 DOF and Tessellation) at 1080p, the DX11 dof really kills my framerate. It's diffusion based apparently. The tech isn't to blame in that case, the budget is. Same goes for some really low res textures (in the Dead City level for example). There is only so much you can do with less than 2 millions. Yeah, a next-gen Metro with the PS4/Xbox One as the baseline will look phenomenal, with a bigger budget. Even more so on higher-end PC if they focus on it. Just to be clear : I really like the Metro series and I think both games look great on PC....But not what I'd consider "next-gen" by any stretch.
Metro series on PC is nice and atmospheric and all, but it's what? A 12hour or so, linear games with the sequel already been out for a while now? Not a lot of relevancy in the redux's nor graphic dissimilarities between platforms at this point in time, just not enough time can or will be spent into titles like this, it's not like it's Skyrim or anything. I know on my Core i7/680 gtx OC I only got around 45fps with SSAA turned off, with it on it dropped well below 30fps. But really the minimum fps is always what hurts the experience, not so much the average. Naturally a PC version of anything has potential to provide more and often does to any number of variable extents but a 20+lb tower with whirring fans and large peripherals requiring a table of sorts, open standards providing inconsistent results between individual games on a non streamlined platform just to push smoother edges and sharper textures only yields a future need to upgrade yet again for the next big AAA game. I'm cool with that for a 40+ hr campaign but not so much on any 8 hr or so games especially the linear ones. So regardless of the Redux on PS4/One looking any similar or worse to the regular PC version becomes redundant once again when something like Witcher 3 comes out and everyone wants a GTX880 SLI or whatever just to max it out and point out to everyone...hey look how much better it looks than PS4. Heck all I've done for the last 15 years is upgrade to the best GPU on the market and yet by the time I can finally reach min 60fps, the game was either old or wasn't graphically intensive to begin with. I chose to reserve future upgrades much farther apart and only for large scale world games depending. A true generational gap to me, something that's legitimately impressive would be smarter A.I., full environmental physics and better character models and animations in higher numbers per area...which we only see in small degrees here and there in various games. Skyrim had good A.I. Ryse had awesome character models and animation, Hitman pushed lots of character models into an area and Crysis had good environmental physics.
May be modern hardware (and software) is not capable to provide playable experience when all that is combined. Honestly I don`t care about effects, physics, shadows etc. When game involves you truly you just don`t have time to look at all that technical stuff. Gameplay is the main thing. Edit: And another axiom for me: the more photorealistic picture is - the less imagination is involved.
