Is Pc hardware not used to its potential?

[icame]

People always talk about the superiority of PC hardware when going through the whole PC vs Console debate. Personally I game on both so I don't care, but I realized something while playing Uncharted the other day. That game is comparable in quality of graphics to many of the pc's top contendor's for that title (Not saying it's better at all. Just saying that it is comparable) despite being run on at least 5 year old hardware. It got me thinking about whether PC hardware isn't being used to its potential because they don't have to work within any boundaries, discovering exactly what is the limit of that GFX card/CPU/Whatever.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

 

[number2301]

There's been discussion recently about how the hardware level access developers get to consoles (i.e. not having to go through DirectX) allows for much greater efficiency. There's also the fact that the main market for triple A games is the console so PCs are often an afterthought.

All that said, PC games have AA and other stuff, the consoles don't.

 

[Canid117]

Due to the range of hardware on PC it is much easier to optimize for consoles and use the hardware to its potential.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Typical PC gamer response: Well it's because console gamers are ruining gaming by dumbing down games. *Inster long rambling about how PC gamers are better gamers and how gaming would be so much better if it wasn't for consoles.*

My actual response:
1: Expect many PC fanboys to go "Ha! You're comparing Uncharted to PC Games in graphics?" and then have a long list of games that have better graphics than Uncharted.

2: As copy/pasted mentioned before, the hardware level access developers get to consoles (i.e. not having to go through DirectX) allows for much greater efficiency.

3: Graphics are an expensive part of game design. Going for the absolute limit of the highest end, top-of-the-line stuff costs money.

4: Personal opinion: I've always thought that having to work with limited resources lead to some of the better games. Minecraft, anyone? How about early console releases? And the Escapist loves it some indy games.

5: Just because PCs have a higher ceiling doesn't mean they aren't without boundires.

 

[viranimus]

It is being used to its potential, Its just that its potential is limited by the human factors of the developers, not the physical hardware. At least not yet.

 

[zfactor]

Consoles have a better graphics API (well, faster and less conplex) because of the set hardware. They are all the same. PC, on the other hand, have DirectX, which is really complex and covers all ranges of hardware (and not even all hardware, that is why PC games tend to have more issues...). The PCs have more processing power, but it gets bottlenecked by the API, whereas consoles really don't.

 

[Woodsey]

No, they aren't.

Also, if you look at Uncharted 2, I think they're simply more clever about where they invest their resources more than anything else.

 

[loc978]

Graphical quality is only one side of performance. Ever notice how long it takes your console to load between areas? Ever notice how often those load screens need to pop up? Consoles deliver comparable graphics on a much smaller scale than a top-of-the-line gaming PC... but a game doesn't exist that can tax that PC's resources.

 

[Aur0ra145]

My PC has a lot of LED and cold cathode lighting. Also, stickers, have to have lots of stickers on your case. Oh, and spray painting, gotta have that as well.

As to using it to it's full potential? Eh, probably not, new hardware comes out all the time. Dev groups can't make a game for how they 'think' the hardware will be at when they finish the dev cycle.

 

[Conza]

People always talk about the superiority of PC hardware when going through the whole PC vs Console debate. Personally I game on both so I don't care, but I realized something while playing Uncharted the other day. That game is comparable in quality of graphics to many of the pc's top contendor's for that title (Not saying it's better at all. Just saying that it is comparable) despite being run on at least 5 year old hardware. It got me thinking about whether PC hardware isn't being used to its potential because they don't have to work within any boundaries, discovering exactly what is the limit of that GFX card/CPU/Whatever.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

I think the short answer is, well two things. A. PC Hardware probably isn't completely used to its full potential ever, and might never be, but we can only hope we make greater hardware and find ways to utilise that hardware more.

B. The gap for the same game, between PC and Console should be marginally comparable, if you have a PC with great graphcs however, you should be able to turn all the settings down and go 'ah, almost PS3/360 like' then up and go 'ah, very realistic', the games are either ported or made to work with the lack of physical power, but remember, these consoles are deesigned to basically only do that one thing as best as they could, when they were released so, you'd hope they could keep up with PCs for about 2 years on full graphics, 2 more years on average graphics, then 2 more years on acceptable graphics, and here we are.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Due to the range of hardware on PC it is much easier to optimize for consoles and use the hardware to its potential.

this, there are so many possibilities for pc that its hard to really go to the full potential of all the combinations so to honestly "go to the potential" on a pc? pah, not very common.

 

[The Madman]

More or less yes, though it's not a matter of 'full potential'. Linky

Fortunately it's not really a problem as I see it, since the longer console generation of games has allowed developers to refine the tools available to them and focus more on artistic style rather than genuine graphical integrity. Uncharted doesn't look good because it's boasting the best visual wizardry, there are a number of games on consoles and PC both which have it beat in that department. It looks good because it's got a cohesive artistic style that the developers used to its full potential.

That's good. The Witcher 2 is arguably the best looking game I've ever played, yet it only runs on DX9 compared to the Crysis series which use much more advanced technology and which I'd still say looks worse. (Although still amazing to look at! The original Crysis scene in which you're inside the ship is still breathtaking today!)

It's how you use it that counts. Plus because of the longer console generation I don't need to upgrade my computer hardware often... haven't had to in years actually, which is good because I'm dirt poor.

 

[Super Toast]

No, they aren't.

Also, if you look at Uncharted 2, I think they're simply more clever about where they invest their resources more than anything else.

Very true. I remember watching a 'Making Of' video that showed just how they managed to make Uncharted 2 look so good.

 

[cocodog13]

5: Just because PCs have a higher ceiling doesn't mean they aren't without boundires.

this is true. but the boundires will alway be alot larger for pc. currently not matter what the hardware consoles cant look as good as pc simply because they dont support AA... on the note of p.c's not being used to their potential. using a pc to its full potential is when you're playing crysis 1 on near full(v synch is never on lol) with CoD:BO minimised in the backgroup, your email avalible at 0 delay and itunes shuffling your fav tunes all at the same time =] and if you built it right near silence for all that effort. unlike the hedge trimmer of a fan the xb360 has >.<

 

[geier]

I belive PC hardware is better, BUT:
A console is a closed system, when you develop a game for a console, you know exactly what kind of hardware your game will run on.

You can optimise your game to this specifications.