Graphics & computing power : what's the big deal ?

[Afrospinach]

Hi there,

I just read the first pages of the "PC's are apparently Obsolete to the Xbox one and PS4" thread, where those first pages essentially repeat themselves saying "No way a console can match a gaming PC's computing power". The subject itself and how that particular thread reached 16 pages is a source of puzzlement to me...

Consoles already reduce FoV to motion sickness inducing levels, run at 30 fps often etc. I find both it these things pretty unacceptable a lot of the time and they are done for performance reasons. Those things beyond aesthetics and are valid reasons to want more power. The whole PC's are obsolete banter is just a console pride campaign, nothing more.

[Lazy Gecko]

It's certainly not when it comes to what determines sales and success. Traditionally, the most powerful consoles on the market have never been dominant. The Master System was more powerful than the NES, the Neo Geo was lightyears ahead of any other 16-bit system, Dreamcast, the first Xbox, etc... It's hardly ever the most graphically advanced games that sell the most on their respective systems either.

It's also a very overstated talking point for PCs. The kind of people who build custom "badass rigs" that can max out the latest games at super-smooth framerates will always be a very niche audience. The biggest PC games always make sure they're playable on a wide variety of setups. If anything, the performance aspect should be the main talking point since developers often prioritize visuals ahead of framerate for console games, and give consumers little to no options for balancing visuals against framerate.

What's strange is that there is really no technical barrier keeping developers from adding graphic customization on console games. They just actively choose not to allow it. Only one case springs to mind when I found GTA3 on PS2 to run way too sluggish for my liking, and I managed to disable motion blur in the options which instantly made it run much better.

[Rennadrel]

Consoles won't ever match a computer in terms of raw compute power because they are not modular. PC's can be built to be faster and the tech is always getting better, more energy efficient while performance increases.

That said, power means little waisted, which has what has happened to the PC because of consoles. More power means more detail in the environments and more realistic models, bur longer development time.

[evertonbelmontt]

I would not go as far as to say that graphics are better for selling. It depends heavily on gender. Most people who buy games, especially RPG's, know exactly what they're looking for. Graphics can draw more atention for amateurs, but you have to consider that some games are highly known and midia spread yhe word.

Altough I do believe that its better to gather new players

[Ravenblade]

[...]
It's also a very overstated talking point for PCs. The kind of people who build custom "badass rigs" that can max out the latest games at super-smooth framerates will always be a very niche audience. The biggest PC games always make sure they're playable on a wide variety of setups. If anything, the performance aspect should be the main talking point since developers often prioritize visuals ahead of framerate for console games, and give consumers little to no options for balancing visuals against framerate.[...]

Well, that's the downside of static hardware configuration: Developers don't have to make guesses on settings but can just optimize for one static configuration. Developers can allow for going for visuals over framerate because games only need to run ~30 fps on consoles to be considered running fluidly, on PCs 30 fps is atrociously low and causing considerable lag. Yet even with keeping in mind that modern engines are scalable and portable these days there's a minimum of framerate optimization you can do without losing presentation value - a key to selling console games these days. Example was the game RAGE where John Carmack said they worked hard to get the visuals running at 30 fps on consoles. It's a technical feat of developers these days that despite the age of the hardware they found ways to optimize games for a balance between visuals and performance. Reminds me of Amiga demos of the old days.
But even then there is eventually a notable limit which is why visuals are still inferior to PC counterparts these days especially with an affordable mid-range video card inside.

I would not go as far as to say that graphics are better for selling. It depends heavily on gender. Most people who buy games, especially RPG's, know exactly what they're looking for. Graphics can draw more atention for amateurs, but you have to consider that some games are highly known and midia spread yhe word.

Altough I do believe that its better to gather new players

You'd be surprised but the RPG genre was a driving factor for improving visuals in games. It's not just amateurish to be attracted by visuals. If you had two games identical in gameplay value and one with superior visuals then the latter wins.

[Pugbot]

I would personally rate graphics/gameplay about equal.

I think the "gameplay vs graphics" debate is about as pointless and tiring as the "console vs pc" debate.

They each have weaknesses and strengths and it comes down to personal preference and what a person can afford. Being able to replace your top of the line PC every 2 years is a luxury many do not have. Spending $300 for an XBOX 5 years ago and still having a cutting edge console to this day is nice as well.

Hi there,

I just read the first pages of the "PC's are apparently Obsolete to the Xbox one and PS4" thread, where those first pages essentially repeat themselves saying "No way a console can match a gaming PC's computing power". The subject itself and how that particular thread reached 16 pages is a source of puzzlement to me...

Why does it matter at all ?

I can't quite wrap my head around why computing power should matter so much when graphics are such a secondary component of what makes a good game. Or more precisely, technical implementation and parameters such as resolution. I do believe esthetics are important, but art and technical specs are two different things.

I think we can agree that the point of a game is to have fun, and as long as it's playable I for one don't measure fun in pixels or framerate. I recently played Skyrim on a dying PC with low settings, which didn't prevent me from being gobbled up and enthralled by the sandbox world. My most fondly remembered gaming moments (heck, make that all my gaming memories) relate to great gameplay, compelling story or outstanding artistic content... So why do the innards of the device seem to be such a recurrent object of discussion ?

The answer is probably subjective and I'm missing the opposite point of view, so my question is sincere and your input welcome.

On a related note, I also play handheld consoles and I love 2D. I'll take well-done sprites over half-baked 3D any day, yet I have often seen developers opt for the latter when the former would have been most appropriate. Some think the trend toward ever more "realistic" graphics isn't a healthy fixation for the industry (I have a rather insightful blog post bookmarked on another PC, link asap). Could it be that too much attention is paid to visual and technical minutiae ? Possibly to the detriment of the rest ?

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Spending $300 for an XBOX 5 years ago and still having a cutting edge console to this day is nice as well.

It is only a "cutting edge console" after 5 years because you only get a new one released about once a decade.

[Deleted]

Well, better graphics means better atmosphere so I'd say graphics are more important but you can't have a game with no gameplay either. You can't really compare those two, both are needed for a good game. As for consoles, I've never owned one and probably never will. It's not even because consoles have worse technical speccs but more because I need a PC anyway for college and other stuff so it's better to have a good PC for all than a lousy PC for that + a console for games. Less clutter.

[shise]

I can't quite wrap my head around why computing power should matter so much when graphics are such a secondary component of what makes a good game.

I am sorry but that's utterly wrong.

Games like DI, the old FF's, WoW, etc can laugh at the graphics indeed. But remember, not every game is like those.

I use my computer to run FSX (a large part of my HDD is dedicated to FSX, half a tera) because so far I can't pay for the pilots license, however it's a matter of time so I prepare myself as good as I can, and FSX with certain mods is the only and best way to do it, rather than nothing. FSX is a simulator, so graphics are not needed, but check this out. Once you try graphics, you can't go back because you see how they definitely are a very important part of it. Please, check this two videos.

Graphics enhance the gaming experience and are as important as the story itself. Or else, why bother playing a game when we can read a book?


]FSX with graphics enhancement and other mods


FSX original.




So again, if it wasn't for the graphics, we'd be reading books instead of gaming. All matters.