If Consoles are holding back graphics than why are all the best looking games on consoles or come from consoles?

If Consoles are holding back graphics than why are all the best looking games on consoles or come from consoles?

Doesn't make sense.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lwI6-jKlsO0&t=3s
youtube.com/watch?v=DgAFQ1leafY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Because the actual bottleneck for better graphics is budget and not horsepower.

Don't tell PC gamers that though.

Blurry console games just can't compete.

>Posts game on and funded by consoles

Me on the right

You just answered your own question OP

Because when people say that they mean that consoles are holding back multiplat graphics, which they are.

No one gives a fuck about some garbo exclusives with zero consistency in graphics where a studio was heavily subsidised to spend a year of dev time 'optimising' (read: manually going through the entire game and toggling various settings on and off for different parts)

>Horizhit
Here we go!

Is that supposed to look bad? Looks great.

Because they are only greenlit if they are on consoles

>Because when people say that they mean that consoles are holding back multiplat graphics, which they are.
But it's wrong. See ppl posting pics of tw3.

tw3 was downgraded a lot

These textures are disgusting. Same for the draw distance.

wouldn't be there w/o consoles.

Witcher 1 and 2 enabled 3 you dumb nigger.

Console graphics can't compare to PC graphics. Fact.

/thread.

Not the same scale and the same budget nigger.

>sonýggers

It would have looked better without consoles and niggers like you wouldn't have ruined Witcher threads.

delet this right now or else

The games with the biggest budgets are all optimized to run on console first, then they are ported to PC as an afterthought. If we had the same studios making games exclusively for PC, we could have even better graphics.

There is just not much money in AAA gaming on PC. Also, PC gamers tend to wait for sales and expect to spend less money on individual games.

>The games with the biggest budgets are all optimized to run on console first, then they are ported to PC as an afterthought.
EA, CDPR, Kingdom Come devs, Ubisoft, Rockstar, and Activision all state the opposite.

It wouldn't have existed. The dev literally said it. Period. And still people post pic of tw3 in graphic thread. It's the ultimate proof that consoles aren't holding back graphics. They are just setting a standard.

The devs admitted consoles held it back. Whether you think a non held back version couldn't have existed is a different argument

Consoles holding back anything is a shitty excuse to avoid blaming the developers.
Games look like shit because the developers want to target low-specs machines (which are way more promintent than high end ones).

The best selling games on PC are all aimed to toasters, as long as you guys keep playing LoL, Battleground, Overwatch and shit like that, no one will put the money and time to make impressive games except niche developers.

It would have.

The devs also said a lot of other untrue bullshit to make sure your console nigger feelings weren't hurt. Consoles ruined the game, deal with it.

no. Cdpr is a perfect exemple : When they knew about the consoles performance, they dropped their PC version to focus to one version only, which resulted in a massive downgrade.

Name a better looking open world game.

That must be why the PC version looks and runs 100 times better.

You sure are smart.

Rockstar yeah, they worked hard on updating and optimizing GTA5 for PC. But even so, the game came out like 5 months before the PS4 was launched. If it had not been designed to run on the 360 and PS3 from the start, it and its PC port would look a lot better.

>hey guys i know better than cdpr dev how things work xddd
They wanted the console audience, especially after tw2 and skyrim, period.

Idk but Witcher 3 on Ultra looks worse

Still a console port : You don't have to make a different version of the game to add the ability to enhance the aliasing, or the shadows.

PCbro here

This game as well as Cyberpunk wouldnt exist without the money and exposure from console release. Sad reality.

Truth

Name a single game that looks better on console thats also on PC.

Crysis looked like a PS4 game when the PS3 just came out.

Hell we can argue that Crysis looks better than pic related.

And nowdays you have company like ubisoft which care more and more about PC.
Try to run wd2 on ultra even at 1080p with a gtx1080

>this is what the devs telepathically told me, I'm not bullshitting you
Thanks for the laugh

...

>best "looking"

>30fps

thats how

in motion, everything is a blur

Game uses orange colored global illumination and Sup Forums starts sucking it's cock.

That's consolefags for you.

It's worse than graphics, they're holding back good game worlds.

There has never been and never will be a STALKER type game world on console because of how shit the console CPU is. Console fags only care about graphics no matter how shit the game itself is, so things like a persistent simulated world don't appeal to them.

I'm playing Horizon at 60 fps, but here is your (You)

Thinking about reinstalling this just to make Ansel shots.

Far Cry 4

Except Witcher 3 barely ran well on current gen hardware when it came out.

People think their PC hardware is way stronger than it actually is simply because it's more powerful than consoles.

It doesn't matter if your PC is 4x as powerful as consoles when you're trying to run at double the framerate, with much higher graphical quality. That will eat up any performance difference extremely quick.

To this day Witcher 3 benchmarks still make sure to turn hairworks off because it's extremely demanding.

And usually the trade off between high and ultra isn't much in terms of visual quality.

The issue to is that games use about med-high settings, and PC gaymers spam nVidia ShillWorks™ bogging down performance.

Back when I got into PC gaming, it was to save money. I already had a computer for school work... so then I just bought a $200 or so GPU, and bam!

id like to see a benchmark but i cant find any, i played killzone which was capped at 60fps on ps4 but it was often in the low 40's

The foliage distance is the other killer.

A GTX 970 can run it at 60 fps with everything on Max except hairworks needs to be off and the the foliage distance needs to be on high instead of ultra.

>Killzone
I'm not surprised desu

its not see witcher3

You're correct, medium to high settings are the most optimized for performance and visual quality. That's because those are the settings consoles use. Most of the time Ultra settings are the developers saying "Well fuck it, let them run the game with unlimited draw distance if they want. It's not going to work very well though."


When Batman Arkham Knight came out people threw a fit because they labeled as the graphical settings as "Normal" or "Low".

They haven't actually updated the assets, they just added an option that says "Ultra" to appease retarded PC gamer children.

>I'm playing Horizon at 60 fps

and then every other game i find that runs at 60fps on ps4 changes the resolution to as low as 720p on the fly to try to hold 60fps

50% is tech and 50% is budget. pc games generally dont get the benefit of someone wiling to fork over $30million on a project like sony or nintendo would. because of that you rarely ever see the full potential of the hardware. when you actually do you get a crysis or (hopefully) star citizen.

oh yea tw3, the amazing console port with 0 nextgen tech beside nvidia hairwork (which sucks compared to tressfx).

>in motion, everything is a blur
You see thats just not even true.
youtube.com/watch?v=lwI6-jKlsO0&t=3s

Stalker could be done on PS3 hardware. Don't talk about shit you don't have any clue about.
It is up to the developers not the hardware.

wildlands

>Posting a (((Gameplay))) Trailer
lmao fuck you, heres actual gameplay youtube.com/watch?v=DgAFQ1leafY

its fucking blurry as fuck.

This game is gorgeous, and i play on PC.

of course it's blurry, it's not native 4k

It looks fine running live on my TV. Youtube has a shit 4k compression, but regardless i don't see what is so wrong with that video you posted.

Get your shitty eyes checked.

The game doesn't look fine, it looks blurry as fuck.

You're just console plebs you wouldn't understand.

>It is blurry if it isn't native 4k
I hope this meme dies soon.
>he thinks this looks blurry
Time to get glasses user.

i was referring to this guys post, he's full of shit, as any sony BRO is desu

>muh stretched res and youtube compression is totally legit guy
Fuck off

>Slow-mo, static .webm
jesus christ you guys are pathethic.

>Posts game on and funded by consoles
That's nice honey but I don't want to deal with console's shitty drawdistance field of view framerate and forced DoF ever again.

Now this is b8

Looks the exact same in the game you retard.
1/10 b8

>His argument gets fucked
>Calls it bait

>Looks exactly the same in game.
>Can't provide a single fact/video to back his claims.

Sonybros are trully the most pathethic race.

You'll fool people who haven't actually played the game, but nobody else.

Post yfw this cuck is buttblasted as fuck over Sony's success
HAHAHAHAHAHAH

LOOL

>literally everything is blurry

What the fuck is wrong with you?

...

Hahaha i bet he plays in 1080p only

Budget, Tech, and the team who made it. Competent developers can do wonders on games.

>talk about motion blur

>uses picture of a texture of a big rock not in motion

wew

>talking about motion blur

>posts video of shit barely moving

holy fuck consolefags are retarded

i just went and checked and sure enough, if you turn the camera with any speed at all everything is a blur

like any 30fps game with motion blur

samefag

Totally not a blurry mess guize! Sony always wins! PiiPoo a dildo!!!1

>Guerrilla Games is Sony's Crytek
>Only ever focuses on graphics, never made a game with decent gameplay
>Still inconsistent with graphics
I fucking hate GG with a passion.

>posting in a slow thread
>suddenly multiple posts in the span of a few minutes to add nothing to discussion

you can at least try to make it subtle samefag

so you retards are going to post the same shit over and over now

...

...

...

Because the best developers have the consoles as their main platform. They sometime releases for PCs just as an extra income.

PCs can be ridiculously stronger than consoles, so, YES, consoles do hold back graphic by a lot. The problem is, only a very limited number of users got a really good PC.

While on consoles, you have a very limited discrepancy in hardware between all users, making it possible to extract its full potential.

...

>muh grass sprites

...

It's much easier to make a good looking game on a console than on a pc, because the hardware is locked down. You can squeeze every little ounce of juice out of the hardware, which will make it run like shit 30 fps trash

If a AAA-dev made a game for the strongest consumer-grade PC on the market, and put as much effort into it for purely for those specs, with a similar budget it'd look so much better you would be blown the fuck out for the next 10 years

You can't because it doesn't and Crysis is overrated shit

...