Slightly better? Its considerably better, and just at the same resolution, not factoring in how much better it does actually look at higher resolutions and framerates to boot.
I didn't avoid it. Initial outlay is higher for PC, but as i pointed out, the amount you can save on multi platform titles like this is considerable, and other factors like online costs. Within just a couple years of owning a PC that can get the results you see here you will have recouped it back if...
I disagree that the difference is just resolution. The Witcher 2 is clearly considerably superior to the console version before you even get to how much better resolution and smoother framerates make it looks besides. It looks far superior and more subtle on PC. One glance at the first comparison shot here shows how much more detail PC packs into all the textures and models and effects in the same resolution as console:
360: 5115d ago 5 agree2 disagreeView comment
Yep, it was indeed most likely marketing tie ups with Nvidia and they didn't bother implementing it properly.
But looking at it, looking at how many of those barriers and polygons the engine can push is phenomenal. Added in to modders high resolutions textures, lots of 1k and even 2k replacements performance was still pretty damn good. A GTX670 can actually do over 60 frames in 1080p maxed and texture mods....said card would only do about half that in metro 2033 maxed. Cl...
CryEngine 3 is powerful, seriously, you just need to see what modders can do with it even in Crysis 2. Crytek themselves may not really be the masters of it, whereas the difference is that Epic and 4A are probably the masters of their own engines and make the best looking games (with them).
Just looking at the wastage in Crysis 2 is jaw dropping, with millions of tesselated polygons spunked on........concrete barriers. 5115d ago 7 agree0 disagreeView comment
"It was early in the Xbox 360 lifecycle and people push out unfinished products to meet deadlines. Besides, console don't have equivalent off-the-shelf parts most of the time to reduce cost which means reduced features on the chip as well."
@ nukitall Quake 4 was patched later but it didn't help a great deal.....we weren't talking about a small performance gap here it was huge.
That is ALSO why i said Prey as well. It was an Idtech4 game...
Look at the background Arksine and the facts with Southern Islands and tell me if a major overhaul is expected and needed.
Southern Islands was the conservative redesign that was known about for a while before it launched. When it became clear TSMC was struggling somewhat with 28nm, AMD put plan B into operation to make sure they were out on 28nm first. Southern Islands is that plan B and as you can see, the top end cards were a tad disappointing performance wise.
<...
Id never seemed too hot with these consoles. Their engines and games were always much, much better optimised for PC and ran pretty well on PC.
For example a mere Geforce 7600GT in 2005 ran Quake 4 and Prey vastly better than Xbox 360 ever did.
Xbox 360 is undoubtably faster than a 7600GT but i clearly remember Quake 4 and Prey being smoothly playable maxed out, with 4x AA and with a res of 1600 x 1200. 5117d ago 17 agree5 disagreeView comment
Well it isn't going to be here for at least 6 or 7 months i would say, so you'll be waiting a bit. The architecture is due a major overhaul which this is going to deliver. With luck it'll be a fair bit faster than current Radeons and probably close the gap to the GTX6xx range.
However it isn't as if Nvidia are just sitting around waiting for that to happen. They already have GK110 which will eventually work its way into the consumer markets in some form sooner...
Ahh yes LNDcalling i expected that argument.
It is true there is a limit to what you can see difference in resolution, of course there is a maximum limit from certain distance and size. I acknowledge that.
HOWEVER.
That limit is not really being tested too much by 1080p on a decent HDTV an average living room. YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT. Whether its on a HDTV from 5 feet or on a screen up close. ...
Perfect emulation steals huge amounts of power, but good emulation won't be too far away for something like 360 i wouldn't have thought.
The PS2 emulation scene really started up before average PC hardware was capable anyway, and as the years apssed and the hardware and software became more refined, the better and more playable the games were.
@SugarSoSweet To be fair Arkham City in DX11 and Physx is pretty demanding. It takes a proper high end card to break 60FPS at 1080p and max settings with say 4x AA, and only the very fastest cards can boast a 60FPS minimum framerate at those settings.
However it doesn't take quite as much to do 30FPS. A Radeon 7850 could do it.
Does it look worse? The guy picked 2 useless shots to base that opinion on. Try these:
WiiU: http://images.eurogamer.net...
PS3: http://images.eurogamer.net...
WiiU: 5119d ago 32 agree12 disagreeView comment
Resolution must mean SOMETHING. Otherwise why bother even going to HD consoles from PS2 and Xbox. It is tempting for people to say something means nothing, be dismissive, when they don't know what a difference it can make. If they don't experience it for themselves.
The gap between 1280 x 720 and 1920 x 1080 is quite a lot. It is a little more complicated in previous generations, but in the PAL region at least the typical resolution was 720 x 576 from Xbox and PS2. <...
Of course, Rocksteady have a little more time to sort the final version. We have known that Batman AC was gonna be on WiiU for a long time though, so it isn't as if this is a super early build....
PLUS if Wii U was significantly faster, we would surely know it by now. We would surely see it in a game like Arkham City. The shots favour the WiiU version, but they do not show a leap you would EXPECT from a machine that is a lot faster than PS3 or 360.
Be rea...
Includes Batman Arkham City screenshot comparison between console platforms:
Wii U: http://images.eurogamer.net...
X360: http://images.eurogamer.net...
PS3: 5120d ago 5 agree3 disagreeView comment
Only a rumour- BUT it sounds realistic from what i have seen.
ALSO 1.5 times as fast = roughly Radeon 4650.
Indeed that is what some people including me had suspected as possible. It is definitely faster than Xenos and RSX, but not by a huge amount and not really enough to do 1080p.
Shortsightedness anyway. This console is planned to last 5 years or more right? Which means for most of its lifespan, it'll be competing against the NEXT generation Sony and Microsoft consoles.
Handling ports of PS3 and 360 games is nothing to trumpet about then. These games are already old anyway by the time Wii U launches. Because PS3 and 360 are nearly finished, once they move out of the limelight to make way for newer hardware, then will Wii U handle THOSE multiplatfo...
Well it depends doesn't it? If none of the next gen consoles turn out to be cutting edge, then what might look like complete PR nonsense could turn out to be true.
An AMD x86 quad core based off the current range would be far superior to PS3's ancient CELL CPU for running modern games plastica-man. Developers would be kissing Sony's feet and thanking them if they got to work with a straight up x86 chip after CELL.
GPU clock speed is also not the most important figure. You can have an 800mhz GPU way slower than a 600mhz GPU core. Where did sony promise 4k res for their next console? We also do not know how much this would cost. S...
Re release the NES?