Slashdot Mirror
Three-Way Comparison Shows PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition
MojoKid writes: "BioWare's long-awaited Dragon Age Inquisition has dropped for the PS4, Xbox One, and PCs. A comparison of the visuals in key scenes between all three platforms shows that while the PC variant clearly looks the best in multiple areas (as it should), there's evidence of good, intelligent optimization for consoles and PCs alike. After the debacle of Assassin's Creed Unity, Inquisition could provide an important taste of how to do things right. As expected though, when detail levels are increased, the PC still pulls away with the best overall visuals. The Xbox One and PS4 are largely matched, while PC renders of characters have better facial coloring and slightly more detailed textures. The lighting models are also far more detailed on the PC version with the PS4 following behind. The Xbox One, in contrast, is rather muddy. Overall, the PC and PS4 are closest in general detail, with the Xbox One occasionally lagging behind.
Okay...
the PC is objectively better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I see what you did there. Don't do that. This is Slashdot, not "10 reasons" and "you won't believe what happened next".
Sounds like you quit PCs over 10 years ago. I need to upgrade every 4 years or so to keep up with the latest games, spending ~$500, and they look much better than console games. If you already have a fast PC, a good GPU is far more useful than a console.
When creating comparison images, use PNG not JPG. One of the images compares the texture detail on the face, but the "more detailed" PC image just shows more JPEG artifacts. That indirectly shows there was probably detail there, but you can't really see it. If you do JPEG it, use the ridiculously high settings.
Almost all screenshots look virtually the same save for one example where the lighting was different as if they tweaked a spot light somewhere (art difference not technical)
It's not even like the SNES vs Genesis days or Amiga vs ST, where the graphics were usually similar but a bit different. It's more like comparing a Quake 2 engine game on different computers.. Every computer runs it at full detail (even back in the day, almost) so you're always looking at the same assets.
Also, if a big fat GPU only gives you more pixels that look the same.. maybe the pixels aren't worth that much if the consoles are doing it at 900p.
Next thing will be to get the smallest and cheapest 4K display you can find, at least an arm length away ; play at a low non native res (even down to 1280x720 which is one third in both axises). Should be looking good enough (add 2x AA or the latest "smart AA") with no scaling artifacts to be seen. A rather cheap GPU (minimum 2GB gddr5) should do. But the biggest annoyance with PC gaming is having to replace CPU, motherboard and RAM just for the games. My 5 year old hardware feels like it's got at minimum another 5 years of life before it, but would probably run crappy new games at 20 fps even with a fat GPU and Windoze.
How many console generations and Comparison videos do we have to write this type of article about before it stops being a thing? Breaking news everyone, a $400 piece of hardware cannot compete with hardware that has no upper price limit. The interesting thing is that I spent $500 on a PC a year ago and I ended up with hardware very close to the PS4. Guess what? The PS4 actually runs my games ever so slightly better on the PS4 than my "cheap" PC. This could be due to Console optimization, or my PC's optimization, or any other number of factors. They're different things for different purposes.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
when I bought my ps4, it was a very cheap high-quality 3d blu ray player. It also happened to play games, which I enjoy. Instead of spending $2k on a PC to plug in to my $8k home theatre setup, I plug in a PS4 and it works great. I /suppose/ I could plug a PC into one of the AUX ports in front, and then awkwardly try to find a place to put my keyboard and muss around with a mouse...or - and this is just an alternative - I could use a little handheld controller thingy that pairs up with my PS4. Decisions, decisions. My overall experience with a 65" TV and hifi 7.1 sound while sitting comfortably on my couch is WAY higher, in my experience, than it would be sitting in my office upstairs - even if the graphics had slightly more detail on the PC.
That way I can then have a laptop that I can use for work, and get a mid-range "gaming" laptop so it is relatively decent for a while, but not actually use it for games much...instead, I use it for home, school, work, etc. And it only needs cost me $1200 or so. I could spend $3k on a gaming laptop, but then I'd have a 17" screen with stereo sound, instead of a 65" screen with 7.1 surround. Maybe some of us don't want multiple PCs? Maybe some of us want a better overall experience, instead of just having slightly better graphics detail? Maybe those of us like that are a big enough market that consoles do actually sell, despite gaming PCs being an option?