Came here to say this. Devs know exactly how they can leverage the hardware perfectly since it's the same in everyone's home.Because PCs vary drastically in quality while consoles have standard hardware. You can take two people who play on PC and one will have one that can run even the most demanding games at 60 FPS while the other has one that struggles to run a game like RDR2 or HZD at 30 FPS. If two people own a PS5 both of them have a console with the same capabilities.
GPUs dont make games. Developers make games. And developers simply cannot afford to lose out on the 150 million console user bases.It's typical for the best and brightest games to be played or made on a console. Going back to the HD era of games this remains true with graphic king games. Gears of War, Uncharted 4, Read Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us 2, and Ratchet and Clank a rift apart wipes it's ass when any game out period. Despite these high end pc's having graphics cards that can cost as much as 3x as much as a Playstation 5 the math doesn't add up. Sure on pc you can play at 300fps with much higher resolutions but I can't really think of a pc game that was a real graphics king since Crysis. In short? Why aren't these pc's blowing console games out of the water while costing 4x or more as much?
Valid criticism; I meant the way they look to you.Well, the way they look isn't irrelevant, since the topic of this thread is 'why do consoles always have the best looking games'.
If you wanted to have a thread about which games have the most impressive physics engines or raytraced lighting, you should definitely start one - I'll be right with you praising Minecraft RTX or Teardown.
This thread is about which games are the best looking. Pretending that you don't know what that means is silly.
That's oversimplifying things heavilyThat's overstating things heavily. A game does not need to account for every possible component in a PC. Most of the hardware variations in PC are handled by the operating system. The minimum requirements of the game is set with CPU, RAM and GPU. There are not anything close to "infinite permutations" there and much of it is abstracted away in DirectX.
It's typical for the best and brightest games to be played or made on a console. Going back to the HD era of games this remains true with graphic king games. Gears of War, Uncharted 4, Read Dead Redemption 2, The Last of Us 2, and Ratchet and Clank a rift apart wipes it's ass when any game out period. Despite these high end pc's having graphics cards that can cost as much as 3x as much as a Playstation 5 the math doesn't add up. Sure on pc you can play at 300fps with much higher resolutions but I can't really think of a pc game that was a real graphics king since Crysis. In short? Why aren't these pc's blowing console games out of the water while costing 4x or more as much?
I'd wager the number of gaming PCs out there more powerful than the Series X or PS5 is very small. And gaming PCs are a small percentage of the total PC market. Most PCs out there have integrated graphics.1) Because biggest console exclusives mostly have higher budget. More money, more time, more talent (better artists and so on). It's a lot more important than "flops".
2) It's a lot easier to make a game for a single platform, you can optimize a lot better
3) Consoles have special optimizations you can't have on PC (special dedicated I/O hardware on PS5, custom geometry engine, variable frequency clock, things like that...). PC aren't actually "much more powerful" because of those. Being "powerful" doesn't mean much by the way, machines are generally better at some tasks and worse at others. If you have a bottleneck somewhere, having more flops on the GPU won't help you much. Hence the numerous shitty PC ports.
Why do Consoles always have the best looking games?
My point has been real simple, best looking games follow production values, ie. $$$.You are making this way too complicated. You are clearly over thinking this and going off topic.
Yea I'd still say FS is 'built for PC' - everything from clunky UX to hardcore non-game focus runs counter to typical interests of console audiences, and I don't see it being limited by the console ports (I expect the opposite, if anything).Now I suppose, considering that FS2020 is actually on its way to console, my answer bears no weight and that is something I have considered since posting my original reply. However the best way to play FS is still on PC.
Holy shit, did anyone see Crysis pop up and tell TC "No, fuck you" after the HD era games?!
I don't know what you're on about. But you'll never build a PC that outperforms a PS5 for the same or less cost. Even with all your weird arbitrary requirements like 5 years of online and a second controller. You can barely get a comparable GPU for the cost.
I spend plenty of time playing games on PC, almost exclusively even. You know how many times over the last decade there's been some SK or Chinese company that's supposedly going to make the next big MMO? You know how many times the game has turned out good? Never. Both those games you posted look awful. I agree that Blizzard is a corpse of itself, doesn't mean I'm going to get myself hyped for a game from Pearl Abyss. BDO was a subpar game at best by all accounts, I don't know why that would give the company weight. If anything they've proven to not be a very good developer so I couldn't care less about some shiny trailers. Not sure who these people are that call them the next Blizzard but they seem like idiots.
Oh boy we've reached the clueless "consoles coding to the metal" portion of our show. What's gonna be next, comfy couch and big TV? What year are we in?
1 or 2 console configs? MS has like 4 alone, and 3 more for Sony.
I think this has been exposed to not be true. Supposedly the Witcher trailer ran on a GTX 780, a $500 card(especially in 2013)A good example is Witcher 3. The first trailer versus what we got is basically because the consoles couldn’t run that version of the game so they kind downgraded it and it affected the PC version.
Because games are almost always developed to first and foremost run on the consoles even if they are primarily developed on PC.
Result is, you can’t get away from certain aesthetics the console version has without massive modding.
A good example is Witcher 3. The first trailer versus what we got is basically because the consoles couldn’t run that version of the game so they kind downgraded it and it affected the PC version.
Star Citizen on the other hand is developed exclusively for the PC and looked excellent dating back to last gen.
yeah seriously pcs usually have nearly the best-looking console games, but with the option to crank all the visuals up to 11, well if you have a good enough pc.They do?
I don't man, Battlefield was leagues better on PC and is legit very impressive in terms of graphics and tech.
Flight Simulator is one of the best-looking and most technically prolific games ever.
Cyberpunk on PC is graphics king right now though.
(Screenshots with missing textures and t-posing characters from the PS4 version doesn't change that, if anything it proves a point)