Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Next gen consoles = Better graphic PC ports?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 12, 2012 12:45:21 AM

Hey guys, when the new this' and thats come out in the console world, i know obviously the consoles will have better hardware, so better graphics, but when they are ported to computer can you expect them to work well with things like SLI and other things that are computer only's, or will console ports forever be *** ( also if you have have any answers or things to say about console ports or anything, feel free i like a good read.......when it suits me)
February 12, 2012 1:47:39 AM

Consoles have worse hardware than computers.

The good thing about consoles is that the hardware does not change and it is basically dedicated for one purpose, play games (yeah, yeah you can watch movies too). Computers are different there are always OS patches and updates, there will be a lot more background processes that takes up some CPU clock cycles like anti-virus and firewalls. The hardware in PCs are different from person to person; different motherboards, audio cards, processors, RAM, video cards... etc.

Since the console hardware does not change (an Xbox 360 you bought 3 years ago is basically going to be the same Xbox 360 you buy in 2014; unless of course MS decides to sell a 3rd gen Xbox by then). That make it a lot easier for developers to optimize the game code. Also, console games don't / can't push graphics as well as PCs. They use lower resolution textures, output at lower resolution (720p which is then stretched to fit 1080p), little or no anti-aliasing, anisotropic effects, tessellation, etc... In effect graphics are worse on a console.

Console ports can be pretty bad because the developer may just want to rush a console game to the PC as quickly as possible. The most infamous game and ridiculed game is probably GTA 4. Horrible optimization which requires you to have a relatively powerful PC to play the game. Much more raw power than a console would have.

Additionally, games developed for both consoles and PC at the same can "dumb down" a game compared to what a PC gamer normally expects. Crysis 2 comes into mind, on it's own Crysis 2 was a pretty decent game. But compared to Crysis it kinda sucked because the controls was a bit simplified, it's a game on railroad track because everyone who plays the game basically follows the same path to get to the destination, and the story setting was changed so that it can be played in a console. Crysis took place in a jungle with lot's of trees, plants and variable shadows. Trees and plants needs a lot of polygons to be displayed variable shadows needs a lot of processing power (both CPU and GPU) because the shadows changes based on the foliage around you. When the leaves of the trees sway so will the shadows that are cast around you.

Mass Effects 2 is another PC & console game. The original Mass Effects was not released for the console. The storyline was still strong (at least that didn't change) in ME2, but I did not like the way they changed the control and armor / weapon customization / options in the game compared to ME.

Another game that was changed to appeal to console gamers was Elder Scrolls: Oblivion it's game play was totally different from Elder Scrolls: Morrowind. Morrowind's story has much more depth to it, it's a game that is much more story driven than Oblivion which was basically a hack and slash game in comparison. Quests were a bit more complex in Morrowind as well.

However, one game that was released for both console and PC which I really enjoyed was Fallout 3. I don't know how it plays on a console, but it is easily my favorite FPS & RPG combo game. Of course the PC version offers more gameplay and customization since there is a very strong mod community for that game.

All in all, I don't like console games, I prefer playing PC games.
February 12, 2012 2:02:54 AM

Oh sorry... I forgot to address your original question...

No specs have been officially released for the next gen Xbox or PS, but rumor has it that the 3rd gen Xbox will have a Radeon HD 6670 graphics card. That is considered a mainstream graphics card. The Radeon HD 7000 series has already begun shipping. Assuming the 3rd gen Xbox will be released next year, the Radeon HD 8000 series will likely to be released.
Related resources
February 12, 2012 2:08:16 AM

Rumor: 'Xbox 720' to have Radeon HD 6670-class GPU

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22366

Initially it's overall performance should be a little better than what you can get on the PC because all "Xbox 720" will have the same hardware and there will be less CPU overhead in a console than in a console. Can a console Radeon HD 6670 equivalent provide the same level of performance as say a desktop Radeon HD 6770 card as a result of optimization? Doubtful.
February 12, 2012 2:35:06 AM

jaguarskx said:
Consoles have worse hardware than computers.

The good thing about consoles is that the hardware does not change and it is basically dedicated for one purpose, play games (yeah, yeah you can watch movies too). Computers are different there are always OS patches and updates, there will be a lot more background processes that takes up some CPU clock cycles like anti-virus and firewalls. The hardware in PCs are different from person to person; different motherboards, audio cards, processors, RAM, video cards... etc.

Since the console hardware does not change (an Xbox 360 you bought 3 years ago is basically going to be the same Xbox 360 you buy in 2014; unless of course MS decides to sell a 3rd gen Xbox by then). That make it a lot easier for developers to optimize the game code. Also, console games don't / can't push graphics as well as PCs. They use lower resolution textures, output at lower resolution (720p which is then stretched to fit 1080p), little or no anti-aliasing, anisotropic effects, tessellation, etc... In effect graphics are worse on a console.

Console ports can be pretty bad because the developer may just want to rush a console game to the PC as quickly as possible. The most infamous game and ridiculed game is probably GTA 4. Horrible optimization which requires you to have a relatively powerful PC to play the game. Much more raw power than a console would have.

Additionally, games developed for both consoles and PC at the same can "dumb down" a game compared to what a PC gamer normally expects. Crysis 2 comes into mind, on it's own Crysis 2 was a pretty decent game. But compared to Crysis it kinda sucked because the controls was a bit simplified, it's a game on railroad track because everyone who plays the game basically follows the same path to get to the destination, and the story setting was changed so that it can be played in a console. Crysis took place in a jungle with lot's of trees, plants and variable shadows. Trees and plants needs a lot of polygons to be displayed variable shadows needs a lot of processing power (both CPU and GPU) because the shadows changes based on the foliage around you. When the leaves of the trees sway so will the shadows that are cast around you.

Mass Effects 2 is another PC & console game. The original Mass Effects was not released for the console. The storyline was still strong (at least that didn't change) in ME2, but I did not like the way they changed the control and armor / weapon customization / options in the game compared to ME.

Another game that was changed to appeal to console gamers was Elder Scrolls: Oblivion it's game play was totally different from Elder Scrolls: Morrowind. Morrowind's story has much more depth to it, it's a game that is much more story driven than Oblivion which was basically a hack and slash game in comparison. Quests were a bit more complex in Morrowind as well.

However, one game that was released for both console and PC which I really enjoyed was Fallout 3. I don't know how it plays on a console, but it is easily my favorite FPS & RPG combo game. Of course the PC version offers more gameplay and customization since there is a very strong mod community for that game.

All in all, I don't like console games, I prefer playing PC games.


Thanks for your great answer's, and yeah im a sworn pc gamer too, i never touch console games, if its not on computer i dont get to play it, and actually im only just bothering to play throught gta 4 right now, and i know exactly how bad the optimization is, crysis warhead gave me better frames on highest settings, rockstar really let pc gamers down on this one, hopefully gta 5 will be a complete turn around, also, the xbox doesnt even support DX10 yet, does it?, or am i mistake
February 12, 2012 2:48:45 AM

The Xbox 360's graphics card is roughly based on the nVidia GT 7800/7900 core from what I've read. That core is based around DX9. The GT 8000 series introduced DX10.
February 12, 2012 2:53:10 AM

Consoles will always be a step behind because it is simply in their nature. New hardware comes out annually and semi-annually in some cases, with regard to graphics cards and the like. The modern design-life of a console seems to be the better part of half a decade and some odd years with no hardware upgrade in between. Console porting will always lead to some gimped PC releases until developers decide it is worth their time (certainly not worth their money however) to design independently for each platform.

In the end, so long as the games are fun I guess that is the best you can hope for.
February 12, 2012 10:30:35 AM

Stringjam said:
I'm still waiting to see stuff like this rendered real-time. Maybe we'll have it with Crysis 9 or 10. ;) 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrb8PSpkhkQ

I'd rather Crysis be the trilogy as it is supposed to be. Otherwise, it would get boring. But still, you can't make predictions.
February 12, 2012 10:47:17 AM

Gman450 said:
I'd rather Crysis be the trilogy as it is supposed to be. Otherwise, it would get boring. But still, you can't make predictions.


Yeah, the Crysis comment was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. ;) 
!