Console Graphics...

  • 132 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

Just played some on a friends xbox... ( he is building his pc)..... Normally i dont care too much about graphics, but after i sold my ps3 to upgrade my pc, i dont know.... seeing console games in comparison to powerhouses like the Witcher 2 maxed just takes me out of the experience. and the 30 fps is savagely bad.... how did stand it? Thoughts? ( i know graphics arnt everything, but immersion is very important in a game like skyrim)

#2 Posted by Bam_D_Leprechaun (795 posts) -

actually, i haven't felt that big of a problem, sure my PC version is modded like hell, but the 360 version runs solid, at least for me.

#3 Posted by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

have you seen maxed pc skyrim n comparison to console skyrim? ( and not some compressed youtube video)

#4 Posted by dankempster (2253 posts) -

You're right, immersion is a big deal in a game like Skyrim. However, I'd be willing to argue that when it comes to building a sense of immersion, a consistent art style is much more important than any technical aspect of a graphics engine. I don't pretend to speak for all gamers, but that's certainly the case for me personally. Where Skyrim excels is in delivering a world that is totally seamless in terms of its artistic style and direction. Every single location, item and character in the game-world feels like part of a bigger, cohesive whole - nothing I've seen looks out of place. For me personally, that counts a lot more towards the immersion factor than the fidelity of the textures or the frame-rate.

#5 Posted by Bam_D_Leprechaun (795 posts) -

@ripsaw117: maxed settings and mods, there's a big difference, but honestly, i don't care about the graphics.

#6 Posted by benspyda (2034 posts) -

I have been playing Witcher 2 on pc on high settings and I still enjoyed playing every minute of Skyrim on 360. Although my new tv makes everything look way better on it so that could be why I have no issue. Plus I think Skyrim still looks amazing on 360.

The only game I played on 360 that I had an issue with 30fps was Sonic Generations as the whole game looks blurred as your moving from left to right so fast.

#7 Posted by jacksmedulla (279 posts) -

@Bam_D_Leprechaun: Your profile picture suits you.

#8 Posted by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

@benspyda: @benspyda said:

I have been playing Witcher 2 on pc on high settings and I still enjoyed playing every minute of Skyrim on 360. Although my new tv makes everything look way better on it so that could be why I have no issue. Plus I think Skyrim still looks amazing on 360.

The only game I played on 360 that I had an issue with 30fps was Sonic Generations as the whole game looks blurred as your moving from left to right so fast.

... fakeboy... if you had a capable pc you would avoid the console version like the plague and xbox games are locked at 720p so even if you had an Imax screen it wouldnt look good.. at all

#9 Edited by benspyda (2034 posts) -

@ripsaw117: Ok I see how it is and why you made this post.

EDIT: also I have achievements in Witcher 2 on this site te he he.

#10 Posted by bibamatt (1088 posts) -

Trolling troll is trolling.

Not really a discussion is it? You ask...

how did stand it? Thoughts?

...and most people will say "we handle it because the game looks great, it's gorgeous."

/thread

#11 Edited by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@ripsaw117: You're right graphics aren't everything. Which is why people can still be fine playing Skyrim on the Xbox 360 or PS3 and not "avoid the console version like the plague."

The problem is that you are a graphics whore who can't see past the pixel count on screen or framerate issues and just play the game for what it is.

#12 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -

@bibamatt said:

Trolling troll is trolling.

Not really a discussion is it? You ask...

how did stand it? Thoughts?

...and most people will say "we handle it because the game looks great, it's gorgeous."

/thread

How did stand it? How did stand it?

#13 Edited by MaxxS (201 posts) -

@ripsaw117 said:

how did stand it?

EDIT: This game's design seems to surpass its technical capabilities. It's got this weird cragginess to it. Maybe that's different on the PC, but it's not terrible. Even then, you'll never see the difference unless you've seen and played both.

Online
#14 Posted by punkxblaze (2985 posts) -
@ripsaw117 said:

@benspyda: @benspyda said:

I have been playing Witcher 2 on pc on high settings and I still enjoyed playing every minute of Skyrim on 360. Although my new tv makes everything look way better on it so that could be why I have no issue. Plus I think Skyrim still looks amazing on 360.

The only game I played on 360 that I had an issue with 30fps was Sonic Generations as the whole game looks blurred as your moving from left to right so fast.

... fakeboy... if you had a capable pc you would avoid the console version like the plague and xbox games are locked at 720p so even if you had an Imax screen it wouldnt look good.. at all

And with that, you've betrayed your purpose. Move along, folks.
#15 Posted by Zelyre (1201 posts) -

If all you've ever eaten is processed food, Kraft cheese and Hormel bacon is pretty good stuff.

If you have access to farmer's markets with super fresh goods? Then that processed stuff tastes... not so good.

If you drive a 150 horse power fwd coupe as your daily driver, it's not bad. It gets the job done.

If you drive a 350 horse power luxury awd coupe as your daily driver, stepping into that 150hp car is jarring.

The difference can be night and day, but if you don't know what the other experience is like, then the experience you get is all right.

A buddy of mine has a theatre in his home with three projectors for 5760x1080, no bezel, tripple monitor gaming goodness. Playing on a 12 foot long screen from a leather couch with rockers in them inside a perfectly pitch black room on his crazy ass computer makes me a sad panda when I come home to play on a single monitor.

If I never played on that setup? I'd never feel like my own gaming PC was subpar. After all, 1080p on a 23" IPS display. That's pretty sweet. I mean... not as sweet as on three projectors... with no fan noise because the beast of a PC is rackmounted in the basement sending audio and video over the network. These Senheiser 595s are nice. I mean, it's no 7.1 setup with subwoofers slamming into my back.

#16 Posted by Nottle (1914 posts) -

For me the game has ran fine other than one part where there were spells being thrown everywhere in a tiny dungeon. The Frame rate took a dive. But it looks good to me, standing on a mountain and looking out is pretty cool. I don't care about the PC version because hey the 360 version is great.

#17 Posted by Zippedbinders (997 posts) -

@Zelyre said:

A buddy of mine has a theatre in his home with three projectors for 5760x1080, no bezel, tripple monitor gaming goodness. Playing on a 12 foot long screen from a leather couch with rockers in them inside a perfectly pitch black room on his crazy ass computer makes me a sad panda when I come home to play on a single monitor.

If I never played on that setup? I'd never feel like my own gaming PC was subpar. After all, 1080p on a 23" IPS display. That's pretty sweet. I mean... not as sweet as on three projectors... with no fan noise because the beast of a PC is rackmounted in the basement sending audio and video over the network. These Senheiser 595s are nice. I mean, it's no 7.1 setup with subwoofers slamming into my back.

God Jesus. That's some fucking overkill right there. Though, it only reinforces my desire to play a game on an imax screen.

#18 Posted by TentPole (1858 posts) -

poop thread

#19 Edited by benspyda (2034 posts) -

@Zippedbinders: I want to play a 16-bit game on an Imax screen. There'd be a strange beauty to those massive sprites.

@TentPole: But yes, I've been suckered into this poop thread.

#20 Posted by Zippedbinders (997 posts) -

@benspyda said:

@Zippedbinders: I want to play a 16-bit game on an Imax screen. There'd be a strange beauty to those massive sprites.

@TentPole: But yes, I've been suckered into this poop thread.

Street Fighter II Turbo is my dream game for an Imax screen. Either that or Shadow of the Colossus.

#21 Edited by benspyda (2034 posts) -

@Zippedbinders: Yes! Shadow of Colossus or God of War 3 would be amazing.

#22 Edited by clstirens (847 posts) -

@Oscar__Explosion said:

@ripsaw117: You're right graphics aren't everything. Which is why people can still be fine playing Skyrim on the Xbox 360 or PS3 and not "avoid the console version like the plague."

The problem is that you are a graphics whore who can't see past the pixel count on screen or framerate issues and just play the game for what it is.

I thought I'd chime in and say that I LOVE a high resolution, so when I game on pc I AIM for the highest resolution I can get with a steady framerate.

That being said, I don't really care how GOOD a game looks technically if the art direction is good, BUT I swear a bad framerate pisses me off so bad, and distracts me greatly. I've been that way since the NES days. (I'd even go back to the 320x240 resolution for games if it weren't for the lack of space for detail and gameplay environment.)

EDIT: I'm perfectly fine with 30fps

#23 Posted by thechronodarkness (294 posts) -

30fps isn't as bad as you think. Matter in fact, a solid 30fps is really great. Problem is, games like gta4 on consoles or the ps2 versions of shadow of the colossus, drop down below 15fps so much, that its so sluggish and unplayable. It seems the graphical issues with skyrim on 360 have mostly been fixed. Only the framerate issue on the ps3 still stands.

The reason why a larger savefile makes for more sluggish play is simple. The game on pc requires what, like 2gigs at least of ram? The game running on my pc, using the task menu, windows says it takes up about 750megs of my ram. That varies obviously. The 360 has 512megs, with only 10 of that used by the system. The ps3 has a total of 256megs, and varies between 5-20megs depending on system usage. Thing is, skyrim essentially saves everything you do. Like if you drop an item in a location, go across the other side of the map, it saves that in almost every instance. Now, think about playing a game like that for 50+ hours, and the game has to save every part of that. See, in gta or most games in general, when you load up a game, it has basicallly one world, with its determined assets, that are the same with everyone whos playing it. But in skyrim and oblivion, the world and the items lying in it are never the same for two people. Thats the difference between the ps3 and 360. The ps3 strives for efficiency with its single 3ghz processor *multithreaded with 7 parts*, while the 360 just has raw power with a triple core 3ghz processor and double the ram.

#24 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@ripsaw117:

What's the point of this thread?

#25 Posted by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

@benspyda said:

@ripsaw117: Ok I see how it is and why you made this post.

EDIT: also I have achievements in Witcher 2 on this site te he he.

then you obliviously have your own unique reasons for owing the console version because you have a vastly inferior product... and im not denying that you have played or own the witcher... you cant possibly think console skyrim look even acceptable f you play the witcher on decent settings at a decent fps...

#26 Posted by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

@Oscar__Explosion said:

@ripsaw117: You're right graphics aren't everything. Which is why people can still be fine playing Skyrim on the Xbox 360 or PS3 and not "avoid the console version like the plague."

The problem is that you are a graphics whore who can't see past the pixel count on screen or framerate issues and just play the game for what it is.

... the bad graphics on the console graphics detracts from the immersion of the game, but mabye thats only because i am used to a superior product

#27 Posted by Mahonay (828 posts) -

It's fine.

#28 Edited by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

Dont get me wrong... my most played game ever is minecraft... but thats because it doesn't require even decent graphics ( a major factor in immersion) because it lets its art style do the work... i doenst try to look technically good, so it doesnt have to... console skyrim, and most console games try to look "realistic" and end up being disgusting jagged messes that make pc only gamers ( who haven't built up a mental resistance) have to clean the blood out of their eyes...

Ok this is crazy hyperbole console games look great when the artsyle is consistent and is presented well, but in skyrim, the bad graphics IN COMPARISON to the Pc version detract from the experience for me, and all the other people who own the pc version and have played other inferior versions.. that is the point i am trying to get across i enjoy all systems fro what they are, be it a crazy 900 tower or a casualbox 360 or a handheld.. i am not trying to come across as an elitist cuntbag, thats why i left gamespot

#29 Posted by Bam_D_Leprechaun (795 posts) -

@ripsaw117 said:

Dont get me wrong... my most played game ever is minecraft... but thats because it doesn't require even decent graphics ( a major factor in immersion) because it lets its art style do the work... i doenst try to look technically good, so it doesnt have to... console skyrim, and most console games try to look "realistic" and end up being disgusting jagged messes that make pc only gamers ( who haven't built up a mental resistance) have to clean the blood out of their eyes...

Ok this is crazy hyperbole console games look great when the artsyle is consistent and is presented well, but in skyrim, the bad graphics IN COMPARISON to the Pc version detract from the experience for me, and all the other people who own the pc version and have played other inferior versions.. that is the point i am trying to get across i enjoy all systems fro what they are, be it a crazy 900 tower or a casualbox 360 or a handheld.. i am not trying to come across as an elitist cuntbag, thats why i left gamespot

but you are.

but it's just an opinion, man.

#30 Posted by Divina_Rex (351 posts) -

I play Skyrim on console because I don't have a gaming PC. Also, don't act like this guy:

The Consoles Suck, It's Better on PC Guy

#31 Posted by bibamatt (1088 posts) -

@ripsaw117 said:

or a casualbox 360

Yeah, Xbox 360 is definitely casual because... the graphics aren't as good? I'd love an expensive gaming rig. I can't afford it. If that makes me 'casual' (to put into context, I've spent 50 hours in Skyrim so far and got all 1200 achievement points in Oblivion. I surely will in Skyrim, too) because I play the game on my TV at 720p and 30fps, then it's a sorry world.

Just fuck off, mate.

#32 Posted by fieldafar (24 posts) -

I don't mind Skyrim on the 360. If my gaming PC were any better I would have gotten Skyrim for PC instead.

#33 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@ripsaw117:

What's the point of this thread?

someone is masterbating their e-penis i think.

#34 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@ripsaw117 said:

Dont get me wrong... my most played game ever is minecraft... but thats because it doesn't require even decent graphics ( a major factor in immersion) because it lets its art style do the work... i doenst try to look technically good, so it doesnt have to... console skyrim, and most console games try to look "realistic" and end up being disgusting jagged messes that make pc only gamers ( who haven't built up a mental resistance) have to clean the blood out of their eyes...

Ok this is crazy hyperbole console games look great when the artsyle is consistent and is presented well, but in skyrim, the bad graphics IN COMPARISON to the Pc version detract from the experience for me, and all the other people who own the pc version and have played other inferior versions.. that is the point i am trying to get across i enjoy all systems fro what they are, be it a crazy 900 tower or a casualbox 360 or a handheld.. i am not trying to come across as an elitist cuntbag, thats why i left gamespot

well if you were trying not to come aross as a elitist cuntbag you failed, because your coming across as a MASSIVE one spouting drivel.

#35 Posted by Chris86 (65 posts) -

Last week some loser told me that he enjoyed the game Morrowind. What a fucking noob, doesn't he realise that the graphics are shit?

The very thought of someone playing a game older than five years just makes me feel sick. Graphics that bad are abhorrent and should be illegal.

#36 Posted by StrikeALight (1114 posts) -

Appears that the OP has just discovered PC gaming. Not really a surprise that it looks better, is it?

Anyway, I'm glad you managed to get that out of your system.

#37 Posted by StrikeALight (1114 posts) -

@Chris86 said:

Last week some loser told me that he enjoyed the game Morrowind. What a fucking noob, doesn't he realise that the graphics are shit?

The very thought of someone playing a game older than five years just makes me feel sick. Graphics that bad are abhorrent and should be illegal.

How are you enjoying the endurance run? ;)

#38 Posted by bibamatt (1088 posts) -

@StrikeALight said:

Appears that the OP has just discovered PC gaming. Not really a surprise that it looks better, is it?

Anyway, I'm glad you managed to get that out of your system.

Lo and behold, six days ago the OP posted the following...

Ok i just upgraded my graphics card to a 570... what settings can i play witcher 2 at if i want 60 fps?

LOL.

#39 Edited by yorro (558 posts) -

There is no discussion to be had

#40 Posted by sopranosfan (1935 posts) -

I wish there was one more thread on the internet telling me how much better graphics are on a PC than on a console.

#41 Edited by spazmaster666 (1968 posts) -

I have to agree that after spending many many hours with both versions, I can no longer go back to the 360 version after playing the PC version. It's not just the framerate that is the issue, it's the lag. If you have a lot of stuff in your inventory, the menus in the game start to lag. The same thing happens if you have a lot of stuff stored in a chest at your house. The culprit of course is the limited memory available on the 360: only 512MB. So if even the 360 runs into this lag problem, than I can only imagine what the PS3 version has due to it's 256MB of RAM. Even the PC version will start to lag eventually if you have enough items in your inventory/chest (i.e. if you modded your carry capacity) but obviously it has to be a much higher number due to much higher RAM available on PCs. If you didn't understand before why Bethesda decided to retain the limited carrying capacity from previous games, you will now because if the game had limitless carrying capacity then the game would start to be unplayably laggy at a certain point on the console versions.

Then there are the load times, which are still much much longer than the PC version, even with the game installed to the hard drive. After only having on average 1-5 second load times on the PC with just a high-performance 7200 RPM hard drive (I would imagine load times on a SSD would be near-instantaneous), the 30 second+ load times on the 360 just got to be irritating as hell given that you have to load every time you enter/exit a building, fast travel, etc.

I probably will go back to the 360 version when the DLC comes out just so I can keep my S-rank in that game, but aside from that I'm done with that version of the game.

#42 Posted by GS_Dan (1403 posts) -

@bibamatt: Ha! That's great.

But yeah, Skyrim looks fine on all platforms. Consoles tend to get away with having lower resolutions because people tend to buy nicer TV screens than monitors nowadays. Aside from some aliasing and terrible shadows it looks alright on there. I'd rather have it like it is where my PC can actually run it than have a Crysis situation, which I still can't properly run.

#43 Posted by animathias (1186 posts) -

Saying the Xbox 360 and PS3's visuals are unacceptable simply because the PC version is better is laughable. Sure, if you can play the PC version of Skyrim at max settings with an acceptable framerate, it's going to be a very noticeable difference to go to a console version. However, throwing terms around like "unacceptable," "disgusting jagged messes that make pc only gamers...have to clean the blood out of their eyes," and "avoid the console version like the plague," makes you sound like an ignorant prick.

You sound like the type of person who would scream in rage and tear his own eyes out if he had to play Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES after playing the same game with better graphics on Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES. It's the same thing - same game with inferior graphics. It also sounds utterly ridiculous.

Barring the PS3's current framerate problems, the console versions of the game are absolutely fine. It's you who's broken.

#44 Posted by Commisar123 (1793 posts) -

I thought it still looked fine on the Xbox, but it is certainly nice to play on the PC.

#45 Posted by TheHBK (5486 posts) -

Oh cool, a thread about some guy telling us how consoles now suck and we are all so blissfully ignorant not to have seen a PC running the game...

#46 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

I have sexual intercourse with my PC regularly 
 
Am I doing it right?

#47 Posted by sopranosfan (1935 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

I have sexual intercourse with my PC regularly Am I doing it right?

No, you let your PC have the intercourse with you.

#48 Posted by ripsaw117 (174 posts) -

@animathias said:

Saying the Xbox 360 and PS3's visuals are unacceptable simply because the PC version is better is laughable. Sure, if you can play the PC version of Skyrim at max settings with an acceptable framerate, it's going to be a very noticeable difference to go to a console version. However, throwing terms around like "unacceptable," "disgusting jagged messes that make pc only gamers...have to clean the blood out of their eyes," and "avoid the console version like the plague," makes you sound like an ignorant prick.

You sound like the type of person who would scream in rage and tear his own eyes out if he had to play Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES after playing the same game with better graphics on Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES. It's the same thing - same game with inferior graphics. It also sounds utterly ridiculous.

Barring the PS3's current framerate problems, the console versions of the game are absolutely fine. It's you who's broken.

.... did you read my last post ..... minecraft is my favorite game ever...

#49 Posted by bibamatt (1088 posts) -
@ripsaw117

@animathias said:

Saying the Xbox 360 and PS3's visuals are unacceptable simply because the PC version is better is laughable. Sure, if you can play the PC version of Skyrim at max settings with an acceptable framerate, it's going to be a very noticeable difference to go to a console version. However, throwing terms around like "unacceptable," "disgusting jagged messes that make pc only gamers...have to clean the blood out of their eyes," and "avoid the console version like the plague," makes you sound like an ignorant prick.

You sound like the type of person who would scream in rage and tear his own eyes out if he had to play Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES after playing the same game with better graphics on Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES. It's the same thing - same game with inferior graphics. It also sounds utterly ridiculous.

Barring the PS3's current framerate problems, the console versions of the game are absolutely fine. It's you who's broken.

.... did you read my last post ..... minecraft is my favorite game ever...

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HE SAID.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
#50 Posted by EuanDewar (4942 posts) -

I hope years from now people will look past the Ziggy Stardust era and realise that Berlin Trilogy Bowie was him at his best. Heroes and Low were amazingly powerful albums, much more so than the likes of an Aladdin Sane or a Diamond Dogs. Don't get me wrong, his glam rock work was great stuff and the live shows looked legendary but he was smart to move past that.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.