Top
260°

Far Cry 3 PC versus Xbox - are consoles holding back PC games?

A Far Cry 3 PC versus console comparison video. When all is said and done are the differences that large when in the thick of it. The question is asked are consoles hampering PC game development of multiplatform games?

Read Full Story >>
cramgaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
SteveQuinn1301d ago

I assume its the PC footage being shown 1st and the 2nd time around its the Xbox360? If so maybe put that in the article sometime.

-MD-1301d ago

You assume? The intense screen tearing and awful frame rate wasn't a dead giveaway?

hennessey861301d ago

The 360 version and I wouldn't call the screen tearing intense. It's only slight and so are the frame ate drops

Bordel_19001301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

hennesy, what this video doesn't show is the PC version running in 1080p native with a rock steady v-synced 60 frames per second. DX11 on ultra with 4xMSAA.

Console versions struggle to keep 30 fps at 720p.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

MikeMyers1301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

I don't get the disagrees. This is like a bunch of people arguing over DVD versus bluray.

I also want to ask why some (not here but we've seen it before) are eager to say that the Xbox 360 holds back the PS3 yet ignore how both are holding back the PC? The differences between the PS3 and Xbox 360 are minimal in comparison. They are also minimal in comparison to the Wii versus the Xbox 360. That you saw a real difference. You don't really see much difference between the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

Time and time again you see those who mention games like Uncharted and Killzone as the pinnacle of console graphics yet when you compare the latest Killzone to the latest Halo is there really that much difference? Not really. Go compare the high settings on Far Cry 3 to the PS3 version or better yet Killzone. That's a difference people can actually appreciate. Go compare Call of Duty on the Wii to the Xbox 360. That's the real difference. This has been going on for awhile now, not just the latest PC games. Battlefield 3, Crysis and so on all showed a superior edge. One easily identified.

Instead for the past 6 or so years we've been brainwashed into thinking that the Ps3 versus the Xbox 360 is all that matters. Forums ran wild between the two camps (and embarrassingly still do), then we have sites like Lens of Truth popping up. Why was that the center of attention? was it because they were actually a lot closer than some wanted to admit so they tried to make any little difference stand out?

These current consoles have run their course. Yes excellent looking games like The Last of Us are coming but new technology won't ruin it. I understand the cycle of game development where it takes time to learn the new hardware and some of the great games come out near the end of that cycle. Then don't make hardware that makes development harder than it ought to. Look at how long it took publishers to grasp the PS3 hardware. There's really no need for that. The original Xbox showed how to make advanced hardware due to coming out later and still make things easy on programmers. The PC continues to push any console while still being developer friendly. So it is possible to offer powerful hardware and make that hardware developer friendly.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

If pc sold 3 million with most games you know what would hold it back? nothing. Yet the low end games like diablo 3($8M), mincraft($8M), torchlight 2(1M+ in a few months), WOW(12M players), GW2(2M +) & Fp2's like planetside 2 & Warface(5M players) are doing great!

Be honest should devs spend 50 Million+ buck to make a pc exclusive AAA game? If I had bill gate cash I wouldn't spend that much.

When it comes to MMOs and F2Ps pc is not being held back it seems since there are 1000 new mmos a month.

I love pc but it time to be honest about big budget games that could push pc to the limit in every way.

I know pc started farcry but if theer was no console versions would farcry 3 be on pc at all?

But pc is till grow as console gamers seem to be moving to pc. And steam box would also help.

I play on pc for cool and new experiences like day z but AAA games Like "the last of us" are just console style.

BattleAxe1301d ago

I think that developers are holding the PC back since the PC is capable of producing a far higher level of graphics and physics. I've been playing Far Cry 3 on PS3, and while it looks descent, we're starting to see the limits of consoles in terms of graphics capabilities.

NukaCola1300d ago

PC games aren't held back by consoles. The PC versions are maxed out, the consoles are maximized for the best version they can have.

badz1491300d ago

are people really THAT thick headed to still think that pc games are held back by consoles? it's like saying the popularity of people's cars Toyota as a brand has hindered the development of supercars which is totally not true!

games are made on pc - even console games! if pc games are not performing at the super duper level that pc gamers expect them to, it's not because of the consoles, but it's the devs holding them back! there's really nothing limiting devs on pc and devs are not at all required to make pc games to perform at the same level as their console counterparts, but seems like devs are taking the easy way and that was what makes the real difference between pc games and console games are just resolution and fps - barely anything more except for some, like player counts of BF3 for example!

consoles are not to be blamed here and never was! still wanna blame someone, blame the devs! consoles don't make games, devs do!

SteveQuinn1300d ago

@MD depends on the specs :D

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1300d ago
Bordel_19001301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

These video comparisons are kinda retarded. When you get the game up and running on a 55" display at home the difference is really big. I've compared a lot of games on console to their PC counter part, it's silly how big the difference is. PC is years ahead of consoles at this point.

And it isn't strange, consoles are 7 years old, my GTX 680 is probably better than what next gen consoles will deliver.

geth1gh1301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

Yea, when I see supposed "1080p" recordings of pc gameplay on youtube these days I still think it looks more like a console.

I guess it is just the encoding on the recording software or yotube, or both.

When I watch those "1080p" recordings on my gaming rig with a 1080p monitor, they still lack the graphical detail that gives me that "Wow!" factor when running the game.

There are probably various reasons to that though. For one, youtube runs in 30fps. So it doesn't show off any higher framerate than possible console counterparts. For those of you who don't know, 120fps on a 120hz monitor is like the leap from standard to hdtv.

I think this is the reason that a lot of kiddies on the net are quick to think their consoles are anywhere near the quality of current day PCs. They have never actually sat down in front of a decent gaming rig and seen the beauty for themselves.

Sidenote: FC3 is getting a lot of flak for the graphics in the PC version. I don't get it. I think it is one of the better looking games to date. It's so full of color and really just looks gorgeous at times.

FlameBaitGod1301d ago

I'm pretty sure next gen wont even match the GTX400 series, there's no way its gonna be close to the 600 series.

Yourworstenemy1300d ago

No shit Sherlock, consoles are 5 years old!! It's 'silly' to keep comparing the 2, It's like comparing PS3 to PS2 or XBOX 360 to XBOX!!

SolidStoner1300d ago (Edited 1300d ago )

I dont see any F****** difference............ you have to be a massive geek to complain about so tiny changes...

Edit: and I know that PC looks better nowdays, its a fact.. thats until new consoles arrives, then again they will be powerful enough to compete with PC's for couple of years, and even beat it with some exclusives...

FlameBaitGod1299d ago (Edited 1299d ago )

Tvensky your really delusional lol. Learn a little about GPU performance and how much each one cost. You don't see a difference because you don't have a way to experience it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1299d ago
dedicatedtogamers1301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

Consoles have been holding back PC even more than ever in recent years. I remember "back in the day" where you had PC-to-console ports of games like Civilization, Ultima, SimCity, Doom, Starcraft, etc and the console versions didn't diminish the development time (or quality) of the PC version one bit.

Nowadays, since the console and PC versions are developed simultaneously, it is rare to see a PC version of a multiplatform game TRULY utilize the power of the platform.

TheBlackSmoke1301d ago

No, you are the minority by a huge mile. PC is not a standardised platform, just because your PC can run games maxed out doesn't mean the next 100 PC gamers can.

The most popular games on PC are games with low system requirements. WOW, LOL, the sims, source engine games, torchlight etc. These games are not being held back by console at all, the fact is the MAJORITY of pc gamers dont care about jerking off to higher resolution and AA, they want games they can actually run.

PC gaming is being held back by itself. the cost of entry is too high to justify. Sorry but most people aren't willing to invest thousands of dollars in a PC to play videogames and neither should they.

MRMagoo1231301d ago

I think there is a spot between dediccatedtogamers comment and Theblacksmoke that is where the truth is, I guess some pc games may not be as good as they can be because of developing on console at the same time but they also have the limit of who has what tech in their pcs at home, if they make a game that cant be played by most ppl running mid range to low range pcs they lose a lot of customers.

cogniveritas1301d ago

I think PC gamers (especially owners of mid range to low end specs) can be thankful for the side effect that the extended console cycle of the PS3/360 generation has had in keeping those low to mid range PC specs relevant for so long this time around without the immediate need to upgrade.

kevnb1300d ago

there are a ton of games that look amazing on pc, far cry 3 is actually one of them.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1300d ago
Temporary1301d ago

YES PC games are held back cause of consoles, and NO no one cares. All the good developers flock to consoles ... who df cares about PC's graphics downgrading a little, play the game not the graphics.

Lior1301d ago

I had the ps3 version and then bought a gaming pc with the geforce gtx 670 and I see now that the console version is actual trash it dips to around 27fps at times and i am playing right now at 80fps on ultra. Once you go on pc you do not go back FACT.

frostbite061301d ago

I went back once.........

Anon19741301d ago

I used to be a PC gamer, now I'm a console only gamer. To me, PC gaming just wasn't worth the time or money commitment anymore considering that, with kids now, my gaming time is limited as is.

Plus, I'm on my PC 8 hours a day for work. The last thing I want to do is fire it up for play as well. It just depends on where your priorities lie. For me, the convenience of console gaming trumps the graphical edge some PC games enjoy. Frankly, better framerates/better resolution simply don't matter to me. Plus, the games I want to play are all found on the console for the most part.

I'm not taking anything away from PC gaming here, if that's your thing more power to you but it's simply not for everyone. It has it's pros and cons just like console gaming.

As for consoles holding PC gaming back, developer resources are more likely what's holding PC games back. It takes a tremendous amount of money, time and talent to push PC's, just like it does to push consoles. If it wasn't developer resources, on the consoles every game would look like Uncharted or Gears of War. Clearly that's not happening. It's not because it's not possible, it's because not all developers have the resources to put out games of this calibre. PC gaming is no different.

solar1301d ago

anyone who honestly thinks any 360 or ps3 game looks better than a PC game is absolutely insane. or delusional. or ScareCrow from Batman AA.

MRMagoo1231301d ago

what about civilization 2 ? I cant think of one ps3 or xbox game that looks that bad?

Yourworstenemy1300d ago (Edited 1300d ago )

It's idiocy to compare any technology that's 5 years apart especially computer technology but YOU'RE doing it! Every article has you PC fanboys pointing it out and repeating yourself is a sure sign of madness!! LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!

The_Infected1301d ago

@hennessey86

Yes it is intense. It makes my head hurt just to play it. I'm a console only gamer but the frame rate and screen tearing is horrible.

Jaces1300d ago

Don't care either way. I play all three. I got FC3 for PS3 and plan on buying it again for PC. Love this game despite it being a lesser spectacle when compared to PC version graphics.

Gamer19821300d ago

Consoles never held back games and PCs the devs chose to do it. They didnt have to. PC gaming should have evolved a long time ago.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1299d ago
piroh1301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

well, best looking games of this generation are console exclusives. Far Cry 3 on max is nice but nothing special, same with Crysis

people wants good graphics, not a good resolution. that´s why console games like Halo 4, Journey won almost every graphics award in 2012

Bordel_19001301d ago

On what planet are you living piroh?

PC graphics are miles and years ahead of consoles.

aLiEnViSiToR1301d ago

Miles xD ?! Its more like light years ahead :D

vickers5001301d ago

I think that he's trying to say those games "art style" look better, which is a valid opinion. He just did a terrible job at articulating himself. At least I think that's what he was trying to convey.

For instance, something like Journey on ps3 is far more visually pleasing TO ME (and many others)than a game like Battlefield 3 on max settings on PC, because I like the art style more, while BF3 is the technologically superior game.

DoctorNefarious1231300d ago

@ aLiEnViSiToR
A light year is a measurement of distance not time. It is the distance that light travels in a year.

LapDance19741301d ago

"Far Cry 3 on max is nice but nothing special, same with Crysis."

LOL, name one console exclusive that looks better than either one of those games maxed out.

Knushwood Butt1300d ago

Crysis is meh, whether maxed out or not.

BlmThug1301d ago

That's taking 'fanboy' to a whole different level. I don't even own a decent spec PC, just a 360 yet I know that PC graphics are far better than that of the consoles because PC is open to upgrade whereas consoles are limited to components that are 7 years old

Lior1301d ago

That is no excuse, you may as well not develop the game then on that hand for the consoles. It is running on low setting and its hardly even getting 30fps at times PULL IT!

Ezz20131301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

1.those awards don't count pc they only count consoles
if they count pc
ps3 can't win gfx awards

2.halo 4 only won few console GFX awards because it had no big exclusives from ps3 this year
and even then joureny won few gfx awards as well
if ps3 had uncharted 3 or killzone 3 or god of war 3 or the last of us or beyond or god of war ascension in 2012
halo 4 would never won any gfx award

3.ps3 have incredible looking games
but no way they are on the same level as the best looking pc games ...keep it real dude

deletingthis346753341301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

You sir are an idiot just like every other console fanboy out there. No wonder I went back to PC gaming.

ritsuka6661301d ago

people wants good graphics, not a good resolution. that´s why console games like Halo 4, Journey won almost every graphics award in 2012 "

............................. ...............________
............................. .......,.-‘”................... ``~.,
............................. ,.-”........................... ........“-.,
.........................,/.. ............................... ..............”:,
.....................,?...... ............................... .................\,
.................../......... ............................... ...................,}
................./........... ............................... ............,:`^`..}
.............../............. ............................... .......,:”........./
..............?.....__....... ............................... ...:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_. .............................,: `........../
.........../(_....”~,_....... .“~,_....................,:`... ....._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.. .....“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/.. ..}
...........((.....*~_.......” =-._......“;,,./`..../”........ ....../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,..... ...............`.....}......... ...../
............(....`=-,,....... `........................(..... .;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-.... ...........................\... .../\
.............\`~.*-,......... ............................|,. /.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...... .............................|. .............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,....... ..........................\
...................`=~-,,.\,. ..............................\
............................. ...`:,,........................ ...`\.............._​_
............................. ........`=-,................... ,%`>--==``
............................. ..........._\..........._,-%... ....`\
............................. ......,<`.._|_,-&``..... ...........`\

Let the facepalming begin!

DarthJay1300d ago

I have Battlefield 3 on Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC and I can assure you, the difference between PC and the other two is so massive it isn't even funny, and it has nothing to do with resolution. I am a PC gamer last on that list, but absolutely everything is better graphically on the PC, settings maxed, GTX 590.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1300d ago
Irishguy951301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

It's the developers choice whether or not they let the Console version hold the PC version back. In this case yes it is held back. In Battlefield 3's case. Nope

Again Piroh, it's not about how something looks. It's everything else that is being held back too. Skyrim would have open cities where it developed for PC's. And alot of other features which comes along with the benefits of that. The Draw distance would be much better too. Look at Modded versions of Skyrim and compare them to consoles. Now imagine if the devs themselves didn't restrict themselves to the consoles limits.

Ai, Scale, Physics engine ~ Just some of the major things that Hardware affects besides visuals. Take a look at the last of Us. Do you know how that gets around having a good physics engine? It has Contextual Animations put in, lots and lots of them. Again, it looks amazing because of cutting corners, these corners cannot be cut in other games unless you want them all to be Uncharted clones/hardware wise.

The last of Us is alot like Uncharted, but it simply has different gameplay mechanics. It cuts the same corners as Uncharted though to make it look great. It does not need to waste resources on other things because the developers purposely limited themselves from it. But other games do need it, or at least they should. Drive a car in far cry 3 and tell me it wouldn't have benefited from a better physics engine.

lodossrage1301d ago

People act like machines have the power to hold other machines back.

The developers are making a choice to do what they do. Plain and simple. And then you have developers like ID talking and praising how powerful the PC is, yet their product literally showed you how much they didn't give a damn (Rage).

If a PC game is "held back", don't blame the PS3 or 360. Blame the people making it that are WILLINGLY doing so.

audioscience6171301d ago

I completely agree with on everything. Developers who focus on PC games imo tend to be very untalented especially compared to console developers. They like to boast about how much better the PC is and haven't shown it to be better once this entire generation except for when it comes to graphics. PC gamers and developers are just looking for a reason to explain why the best games in most genres are console exclusive. The limited power funny enough is probably the reason consoles have been better since it requires you to pay more attention to things like gameplay while still giving you good graphics.

jaymart2k1301d ago

Far Cry 3 on console isn't held back.

Battlefield 3 is tho. Smaller maps , Smaller player count , less frames per second.

Hufandpuf1301d ago

Far Cry 3 looks so bad on consoles. The compared to other console games it holds up a bit, but when compared with the PC version, sometimes I can bring myself to play FC3 sometimes. Great game though.

Janitor1301d ago (Edited 1301d ago )

But the article is about "are consoles holding PC games back". But if Far Cry 3 runs and looks better on PC then how are consoles holding it back? Stupid article makes no sense.

ForgottenProphecy1301d ago

what corners are being cut? I'm sorry, I just don't understand.

DwightOwen1301d ago

Assets for multiplat games are always developed with the lowest common denominator in mind, then handed off to each respective team to be programmed into something the platform can run using dev kits. That's why, for many PC versions of major releases, there are no noticeable differences besides an increase in resolution. Some developers tack on DX11 features onto their titles (Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3), but because they're not engine-native, they are inefficient and require tons of raw power to enjoy at max settings.

Some developers have bucked this trend recently - Battlefield 3 immediately comes to mind, and also the upcoming Crysis 3 - by building their games to perform on the latest hardware and then whittling away what's needed in order to get the game to run smooth on consoles, which results in a better overall experience for everyone.

Hicken1301d ago

The problem really isn't the consoles but, as you say, the developers.

When they want to, they've shown they can make PC games that aren't hindered by the need to also make a console version... when they want to. But it seems, more often than not, that they DON'T want to.

And then, inexplicably, consoles get the blame. That's like somebody with an iPhone blaming somebody with a flip phone for their phone service being bad.

DwightOwen1300d ago

It's really the publisher who deserves the blame. Since they fund the projects, they determine which platforms the game is released on and which platforms get the most attention. People always give Crytek shit about how Crysis 2 being a console port, but that was EA's decision for them to focus on the console version and not the PC.

joffa811301d ago

That's the big issue here games are always developed for the most popular platform and for the last 6 years that has been the Xbox 360. Sure there have been exceptions to this but those are few and far between.

As with everything game development is all about maximum potential profit and as such 99% of all games are developed for consoles its nothing to do with consoles holding back games its about games developer wanting maximum finicial reward for their work.

MysticStrummer1301d ago

"games are always developed for the most popular platform and for the last 6 years that has been the Xbox 360."

I guess the facts that the Wii outsold 360 and PS3, and that PS3 has outsold the 360 overall since it launched, have escaped your attention.