Has a PC game EVER been as optimized as most console games?
- Thread starter Fledge
- Start date
...lets just say you wouldn't get very far.
Yes, devs are lazy now.
its far easier to develop for console (in a marketing sense, unified platform etc) simply port and bodge up to work on pc.
Remember, money talks, a lot. and in a world where you dont make that much money (games dev) you target the best market and expand from there.
its far easier to develop for console (in a marketing sense, unified platform etc) simply port and bodge up to work on pc.
Remember, money talks, a lot. and in a world where you dont make that much money (games dev) you target the best market and expand from there.
I also think this has a lot to do with perception as well, console games generally run at 720 and actually have a lot of visual optimizations that console gamers dont tend to notice, they just put the game in and at the most install it to hdd, they cant change the way it looks or runs. hardcore pc gamers install the game, patch it, go straight into settings and ramp everything all the way up at the highest res supported, they run an fps counter and do a few benchmarks.
The hardcore pc gamer will not be happy unless they can "max it" at a decent framerate, if it runs bad max on their new pc then the game is "poorly optimised" regardless of weither the game is drawing detailed dynamic shawdows at 5 times the distance of the console version, if the developers had set the max settings to be equal to the console version i dont think there would be as much outcry about the graphics as there is about "optmising"
The hardcore pc gamer will not be happy unless they can "max it" at a decent framerate, if it runs bad max on their new pc then the game is "poorly optimised" regardless of weither the game is drawing detailed dynamic shawdows at 5 times the distance of the console version, if the developers had set the max settings to be equal to the console version i dont think there would be as much outcry about the graphics as there is about "optmising"
Agreedish, not just in comparison to console though. Crysis is a good example, judged on medium settings (which look phenomenally good) it doesn't perform THAT badly, but everyone is obsessed with running MAXXXED OUT, regardless of what the actual visual quality is on different settings.
Developers also get very good at creating games for the consoles over the years because they don't change. The PS3/360/etc has the same hardware as back when it was released. Over time you tend to learn lots of ways of squeezing as much performance out of the platform.
Now enter the PC. A smokin-hot piece of hardware so powerful the Moon moves an inch closer to the Earth is only a smokin-hot piece of hardware for a few months before something else comes out and decimates it. Then throw in all the different hardware configurations. RAM, Mobo, CPU all play a part in how well a game runs.
It is hard to get the absolute best out of a platform if the goal posts keep moving!
Now enter the PC. A smokin-hot piece of hardware so powerful the Moon moves an inch closer to the Earth is only a smokin-hot piece of hardware for a few months before something else comes out and decimates it. Then throw in all the different hardware configurations. RAM, Mobo, CPU all play a part in how well a game runs.
It is hard to get the absolute best out of a platform if the goal posts keep moving!
It's not about game optimization it's about the hardware, consoles are optimized for gaming not the games excessively optimized for them.
If you had a PC with the same specs as an xbox 360 and ran the same OS then you would get almost identical performance. But when you start having to run an operating system like vista or 7 that requires gigabytes of ram just to run and complicated drivers and APIs that's why you need much more poweful hardware to run the same games. Taking into account the RAM issues of running vista/7 the specs on the 360 aren't really particularly "low", I can still run new games at decent settings on my dual core with HD3850.
If you had a PC with the same specs as an xbox 360 and ran the same OS then you would get almost identical performance. But when you start having to run an operating system like vista or 7 that requires gigabytes of ram just to run and complicated drivers and APIs that's why you need much more poweful hardware to run the same games. Taking into account the RAM issues of running vista/7 the specs on the 360 aren't really particularly "low", I can still run new games at decent settings on my dual core with HD3850.
If its designed for consoles then of course a 285 is going to eat it for breakfast, but then will the sequel be anywhere near as technically impressive as the original Crysis? I reckon not.
LOL at people who constantly have a stick up their arse over American spellings or really anything "yank" 
rolleyes. You'd probably go mad if you also spoke Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc. with their former colonies having similar spelling differences. Grow up.
And yeah, the 'z' fits better in this instance, imo. On a side note, 'color' is perfectly fine as the 'u' was added to make it more Frenchy! Ask yourself, do you still write mirrour, horrour, authour, doctour, and so on? Or have you reverted to the original English spellings like the Americans have?
rolleyes. You'd probably go mad if you also spoke Spanish, Portuguese, French, etc. with their former colonies having similar spelling differences. Grow up.And yeah, the 'z' fits better in this instance, imo. On a side note, 'color' is perfectly fine as the 'u' was added to make it more Frenchy! Ask yourself, do you still write mirrour, horrour, authour, doctour, and so on? Or have you reverted to the original English spellings like the Americans have?
Last edited:
Have you ever gone up close to your TV and scrutinised/inspected the graphics on a consike game? They really are god awful. This is often of set by the fact that you generally sit a good distance away from yout tv ofcourse.
The image quality that you can get on PC's is many many times better but then you often need it as you generally sit closer to the screen.
The image quality that you can get on PC's is many many times better but then you often need it as you generally sit closer to the screen.
No its not. My 32 inch tv halfway across the room appears roughly the same size as this monitor about a metre away.
yeah I have, althrough it was not that bad it just looks like it needs some AA due to the lower res of consles nothing too nasty. but other wise the detial looks there althrough I ve only played dystany warroir 6 mostly (yes I have played it on PC, got a little addicted)
(yes I have played it on PC, got a little addicted)
A lot of of them run lower than that and upscale, that and a lot of console games fps is in the 30-40 region at best.
no doubt, i find that if i play console games exclusivley for a long period of time i become used to the performance and lower res visuals, it doesnt effect my enjoyment in the slightest however one day ill decide to boot up steam and play some multiplat pc games and it throws me off a bit.
Now that we are this far down the line with the current generation of consoles i dont think there is any reason to question the pound for pound performance - visuals differance, to buy pc hardware that can exceed a consoles performance doesnt really cost much at all now, i remember trying to play cod 2 on my brand new 7800 back when the xbox just launched, the card cost me over £200 but the game ran and looked a lot better on the xbox then it did on my new card, now middle market hardware can make games look a whole lot better, but as i say i think the root of the optimisation argument is linked to a performance expectation regardless of how high "high" settings actually is.
An issue im more concerned with is weither we will ever see a triple a title lead on the pc and be watered down for the consoles like the way cod was at the start.
Not really mainly as consoles are easier to code to work 100% of the consoles power tho their is the exception when its not a AAA title. Even then they can code all they like and still be a little choppy in performance. Bug wise they are relativly bug free in most part as theres only 1 gfx 1 sound 1 cpu to code for compared to pc's vast array of diff hardware. Even tho direct x is supose to remedy this its still along way off from coding games as good as consoles.
Some games are rather well optimised and run great with little amount of bugs. Most gta games run great only gta 4 due to advanced engines in the game struggle performance wise but i havent noticed a bug yet in the game.
Some games are rather well optimised and run great with little amount of bugs. Most gta games run great only gta 4 due to advanced engines in the game struggle performance wise but i havent noticed a bug yet in the game.