Thymos wrote: »

Keep in mind @Adam_Chattaway , you're acting like a PS4 elitist.

No just simply trying to explain what's wrong with the PC community, one of my friends from Leeds who is nearly 50 played PC games since the beginning, and even he is disgusted on how most PC gamers act these days. He talks about the days when you never used to say killed it was always fragged because you played for fun and saying i killed someone was wrong.

And i'm fine with 30 fps it doesn't bother me, i play PC games at 100+ fps with a 144hz monitor so i've seen super smooth and i'm totally fine with 30 fps, as you see in the video i linked that's 30 fps but does it matter? no. Youtube videos were 30 fps and most still are 30 fps, do people complain about that? nope lol.

I have 4k and a 970 FTW , but am quite impressed with the ps4 comparison , especially considering my gcard probably cost as much as the console , never mind the rest of my setup.
Well done zenimax , let's just hope the successful port funds some more content

psicorpb16_ESO wrote: »

I have 4k and a 970 FTW , but am quite impressed with the ps4 comparison , especially considering my gcard probably cost as much as the console , never mind the rest of my setup.
Well done zenimax , let's just hope the successful port funds some more content

I'd like to see the numbers playing on each platform, be interesting to see the population distribution between all 6 servers.

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Zavinus wrote: »

Cool, I guess. I don't notice much of a difference.

Yea when side by side i can tell thigns liek the extra shadows or *** the wood planks are less blury and the little boat is gone etc but unless you put them side by side i still think they look very good on PS4.

I think the view distance though on ESO is super demanding because my PC has a GTX 970 and in long range views the fps would drop to 45, so the fact a PS4 can keep 30 fps in the same situation is good.

I'm not sure I amusing a 660 ti 1080p everything maxed and I have no frame issues ever, solid 60fps.

nikrel wrote: »

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Zavinus wrote: »

Cool, I guess. I don't notice much of a difference.

Yea when side by side i can tell thigns liek the extra shadows or *** the wood planks are less blury and the little boat is gone etc but unless you put them side by side i still think they look very good on PS4.

I think the view distance though on ESO is super demanding because my PC has a GTX 970 and in long range views the fps would drop to 45, so the fact a PS4 can keep 30 fps in the same situation is good.

I'm not sure I amusing a 660 ti 1080p everything maxed and I have no frame issues ever, solid 60fps.

So you get 60 fps where my GTX 970 FTW edition can't in many places i run at 45 fps in towns on max gfx.

Thymos wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

$500 Vs $5000, I wonder which was my smarter buy sometimes.

Show me a $5000 PC and I'll rip it apart, because that's ludicrous.

Yar, it is. You would have trouble even building a $5k pc that wasn't unwieldy and had parts needlessly added for gaming nowadays. Like I said lower spec stuff provides a fun level of graphics... But hit the $1200 or so pc range and you're a lot better looking than the consoles can ever hope to be, with a high end work computer to boot .

OnthaLoose wrote: »

I own both copies as well, and my rig is two gtx970s SLI. I notice huge differences, but graphic fidelity is important to me, so someone who doesn't care wouldn't mind much.

Either way, a few things I notice playing on ultra on PC vs console is anti aliasing (jagged corners), lower resolution textures, draw distance (and see things appear and disappear on console within visable range), lack of distant shadows/jaggy close up shadows, lighting/reflections (look at the lamps light reflection in the first two pics) and obviously the lack of 60fps

To be clear, I'm not knocking the consoles. But ppl shouldn't compare pc's to consoles, they'll never be able to compete. The graphics on both console have the processing power of a gtx 285 circa 2009. So why do I play on consoles too? That's where my friends are and the console controller. My PC and console are both on a 55in flat screen, so I sit on a sofa. Ever tried to use a kb/m on a sofa? Not easy.

Just my opinion, not looking for anyone to take this as an argument. G'day gents!

Well yes I actually have. I own a 1080p projector which I use with an 84 inch screen via hdmi with a wireless keyboard, mouse, and Xbox 360 controller for some games too. The Bluetooth keyboard has full sized keys but drops the number pad, and fits perfectly on a notebook lapdesk for me on my sofa. For the rare game that doesn't work well with the controller out of the box that I want to play with it, I make a quick xpadder profile and am done with it in 5 or 10 minutes with some minor tweaks if I noticed it didn't work perfectly later and that's a one time setup ever. Consoles have one big advantage despite having a higher total cost of ownership and that is ease of use for the average Joe who doesn't know how to do much more than Facebook with a computer as far as tech aptitude. The is a substantial point.

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

OnthaLoose wrote: »

I own both copies as well, and my rig is two gtx970s SLI. I notice huge differences, but graphic fidelity is important to me, so someone who doesn't care wouldn't mind much.

Either way, a few things I notice playing on ultra on PC vs console is anti aliasing (jagged corners), lower resolution textures, draw distance (and see things appear and disappear on console within visable range), lack of distant shadows/jaggy close up shadows, lighting/reflections (look at the lamps light reflection in the first two pics) and obviously the lack of 60fps

To be clear, I'm not knocking the consoles. But ppl shouldn't compare pc's to consoles, they'll never be able to compete. The graphics on both console have the processing power of a gtx 285 circa 2009. So why do I play on consoles too? That's where my friends are and the console controller. My PC and console are both on a 55in flat screen, so I sit on a sofa. Ever tried to use a kb/m on a sofa? Not easy.

Just my opinion, not looking for anyone to take this as an argument. G'day gents!

Well yes I actually have. I own a 1080p projector which I use with an 84 inch screen via hdmi with a wireless keyboard, mouse, and Xbox 360 controller for some games too. The Bluetooth keyboard has full sized keys but drops the number pad, and fits perfectly on a notebook lapdesk for me on my sofa. For the rare game that doesn't work well with the controller out of the box that I want to play with it, I make a quick xpadder profile and am done with it in 5 or 10 minutes with some minor tweaks if I noticed it didn't work perfectly later and that's a one time setup ever. Consoles have one big advantage despite having a higher total cost of ownership and that is ease of use for the average Joe who doesn't know how to do much more than Facebook with a computer as far as tech aptitude. The is a substantial point.

Xpadder does not work on many games tho, try programming that for any game that doesnt support controller and it feels horrible, from mass effect and having to use the controller as a virtual mouse int he UI, impossible on dialbo 3 to even get close to what D3 on Console it like and AOE and the UI don't work well at all i've tried it, on console you press l1 and r1 to switch between menu but on PC there's no way to do this unless you set a keyb ind for each menu and then bind all those to the few controller keys.

A lot of people do like to brag about making controller schemes on xpadder but from my experience i hated the feel and just reverted back to mouse and keyboard

I don't get why PC games like mass effect which have full controller support on Console don't have controller support on PC though, like how hard can it be to move the controller ui for ESO from PS4 to PC, prob take an hour or something.

http://www.esoui.com/downloads/info1102-ControllerSupport.html

QuadroTony wrote: »

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

OnthaLoose wrote: »

I own both copies as well, and my rig is two gtx970s SLI. I notice huge differences, but graphic fidelity is important to me, so someone who doesn't care wouldn't mind much.

Either way, a few things I notice playing on ultra on PC vs console is anti aliasing (jagged corners), lower resolution textures, draw distance (and see things appear and disappear on console within visable range), lack of distant shadows/jaggy close up shadows, lighting/reflections (look at the lamps light reflection in the first two pics) and obviously the lack of 60fps

To be clear, I'm not knocking the consoles. But ppl shouldn't compare pc's to consoles, they'll never be able to compete. The graphics on both console have the processing power of a gtx 285 circa 2009. So why do I play on consoles too? That's where my friends are and the console controller. My PC and console are both on a 55in flat screen, so I sit on a sofa. Ever tried to use a kb/m on a sofa? Not easy.

Just my opinion, not looking for anyone to take this as an argument. G'day gents!

Well yes I actually have. I own a 1080p projector which I use with an 84 inch screen via hdmi with a wireless keyboard, mouse, and Xbox 360 controller for some games too. The Bluetooth keyboard has full sized keys but drops the number pad, and fits perfectly on a notebook lapdesk for me on my sofa. For the rare game that doesn't work well with the controller out of the box that I want to play with it, I make a quick xpadder profile and am done with it in 5 or 10 minutes with some minor tweaks if I noticed it didn't work perfectly later and that's a one time setup ever. Consoles have one big advantage despite having a higher total cost of ownership and that is ease of use for the average Joe who doesn't know how to do much more than Facebook with a computer as far as tech aptitude. The is a substantial point.

Xpadder does not work on many games tho, try programming that for any game that doesnt support controller and it feels horrible, from mass effect and having to use the controller as a virtual mouse int he UI, impossible on dialbo 3 to even get close to what D3 on Console it like and AOE and the UI don't work well at all i've tried it, on console you press l1 and r1 to switch between menu but on PC there's no way to do this unless you set a keyb ind for each menu and then bind all those to the few controller keys.

A lot of people do like to brag about making controller schemes on xpadder but from my experience i hated the feel and just reverted back to mouse and keyboard

I don't get why PC games like mass effect which have full controller support on Console don't have controller support on PC though, like how hard can it be to move the controller ui for ESO from PS4 to PC, prob take an hour or something.

http://www.esoui.com/downloads/info1102-ControllerSupport.html

"There is some menu navigation available, but it is limited due to program/coding limitations."

This is what i'm talking about, you can map jump to X and Skill 1 to L1 etc but you can't navigate the UI like a console and that's whats most important.

I'm assuming that most of the thread was PC master race bickering but I can tell you the PS4's primary weakness:

Anisotropic filtering.

I'm not sure why but essentially nothing on the console supports that and the result is generally blurrier textures on any surface you're not looking directly at.

That said I'm not unhappy with the PS4's visuals or performance on the game, it's more than serviceable and the game doesn't exactly demand 60fps response times.

Would it be nice for it to be better? Sure, but I don't think it's an option considering it's a ported game. If they'd built it ground up natively on PS4 I have no doubt they'd managed a lot more.

Meanwhile, the PC master racers can let me know how Batman Arkham Knight is. OH WAIT.

Just saying, native development platform has a lot more to do with end result than straight hardware power. We're at a point in technology where that's going to continue to be the primary divider I think.

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Amiculi wrote: »

I'm assuming that most of the thread was PC master race bickering but I can tell you the PS4's primary weakness:

Anisotropic filtering.

I'm not sure why but essentially nothing on the console supports that and the result is generally blurrier textures on any surface you're not looking directly at.

That said I'm not unhappy with the PS4's visuals or performance on the game, it's more than serviceable and the game doesn't exactly demand 60fps response times.

Would it be nice for it to be better? Sure, but I don't think it's an option considering it's a ported game. If they'd built it ground up natively on PS4 I have no doubt they'd managed a lot more.

Meanwhile, the PC master racers can let me know how Batman Arkham Knight is. OH WAIT.

Just saying, native development platform has a lot more to do with end result than straight hardware power. We're at a point in technology where that's going to continue to be the primary divider I think.

I also play FFXIV and the new heavensward expansion just came out, ffxiv runs at an unlocked 60 fpson PS4, and while it can drop to 30 fps etc most of the time it runs at 60 fps and looks borderline identical to the PC (PC now has DX11 but makes little difference from my testing)

This is a perfect example of cross platform MMO where PS3 PS4 and PC can all play together.

That's fairly impressive. I played FFXIV a short time on PC but it wasn't for me.

coryevans_3b14_ESO wrote: »

Agreed. Which is why consoles were the worst thing to happen to PC games. When this game was originally announced there was no plan to go

I dunno. I hear a lot of how console ruined PC but I've yet to see much of an example of this.

There's a vast quantity of PC exclusive titles and they're rarely any more impressive than a mulitport title. Rarely is key here as there are the odd few that are but it's not a standard.

Many PC specific titles end up on console at a later date and, while taking a visual hit, don't usually damage the game itself in any way, and besides, if you have a craptastic PC you're not going to be seeing much of a visual difference anyway.

Point being that the claim that consoles hold back PC is becoming ever less relevant, especially with today's consoles. They aren't on par with a top of the line PC but what they ARE on par with is the average gaming PC according to steam's hardware survey. Actually, they're WELL AHEAD of the average gaming PC. (screen capture of current survey just in case)

So, sure, developers could target the absolute monsterbeast top of the line hardware but that would be limiting their audience dramatically. Even targeting consoles is technically limiting their audience dramatically.

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Attorneyatlawl wrote: »

coryevans_3b14_ESO wrote: »

PC graphics > console graphics.



Don't know what the settings are on your pc picture but the graphics on my PC with max settings look much better than that.

Mine, too. There's really no comparison between 3840x2160 (4k) G-Sync with twice the texture resolutions, more detailed models, noticeably better shadows, and framerate never dropping down much from 58 (capped to ensure G-Sync stays active full-time for the zero input lag features & elimination of screen tearing) other than hitting 45ish during giant zerg warfare in Cyrodiil. I'll post a screenshot or two later . Yes, the console versions look good enough to be very much enjoyable, just like other games that are cross-platform, but no, they are not close enough to be in the same ballpark .

This is something PC gamers though very much forget

This is how most console gamers think
FUN> GFX

This is how PC gamers think
GFX>FUN

All pc gamers care about these days are 60 fps and 4k which the majority can't even run, especially normal people who have kids and a mortgage and bills, go tell that hot chick int he club you have a £2,000 PC and see if it gets you laid :P most PC gamers seem to act like it will for some reason lol.

Sound like a bit jealous to me. Normal people with kids and a mortgage can't have these things ?

Wife ( hot Asian one who looks quite good in a bikini in hot tub and likes gaming herself ) , two small kids , ( and a pug because everyone should have a pug) , mortgage and I've got 2 Benq's 3201's with Titan x SLI.

No debt either other than the mortgage.

Working hard and getting a well paying career is quite normal for some of us.

You're assuming it's normal not to have disposable income for your hobbies.

For some of us , it's quite normal.

Oh , and if you have to use your possessions to show off to "get laid" , you've got your own personal problems.

For the cherry on top I enjoy the PS4 for Bloodborne , bought one just for it initially as looked like a great game.


At some point maybe don't be angry because some people worked hard to make good money and spend it in ways they enjoy.

Just a pet peeve of mine to see snarky remarks from people who can't afford things others can,

Grew up poor myself and decided I didn't want to be so worked two jobs to get ahead and get through college.

About as normal as it gets to me.

nvm

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

Thymos wrote: »

Adam_Chattaway wrote: »

"runs smoother"

Batman arkham, just came out and is so broken on PC it was removed from steam
Planetside 2 too a year to get playable on the majority of medium-high end pc's
Witcher 3 still broken and laggy and hitching to this day
Dragon age inquisition lagged very bad even on high end pc's think it's fixed.
LOTR war in the north took 6 months to patch and become playable on PC with AMD gfx cards

Need i go on? no matter how good your hardware is PC games will ALWAYS end up having game breaking bugs, fps issues, and be unplayable while you wait for patches.

PC gamers act all high and mighty but seem to forget the abundance of performance issues that can take weeks or months to fix to be fun on PC.

Why do you think i got witcher 3 again for my birthday on PS4? even though i had it and the expansion passes on PC? because its a hell of a lot more fun on PS4 despite 30 fps and lower gfx, same with ESO I've had more fun on ESO on PS4 than i ever did on PC, and the voice chat in PVP makes for some epic roleplay lol.

Witcher 3 and Dragon Age also had graphics issues on the consoles too, not just the PC.

Though, just about everything else you wrote has nothing to do with the argument you proposed in the OP. This was PS4 graphics vs. PC graphics, not gameplay bugs or compatibility issues. That's a whole different argument, which you can start a new thread on. Heck so many people already do bring it up about how other games didn't have this problem.

This was a random PVP battle i had when i first started the game, not large scale but as you can see the voice chat in this scenario helped and made it more fun and immersive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxwI-bIv31U


[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Rude and Insulting Comments]

Is this an EU? Because if this is EU I swear to god I'm dropping NA and switching to EU.