Do you think Gran Turismo would be better if developed for the PC?

[tyl0r_r]

If Gran Turismo were a PC game then I probably wouldn't be able to play it. Yamauchi is obviously insane (in a nice way) and if he were developing for the PC platform would likely be willing to compromise on absolutely nothing. It'd be like how when Crysis came out you needed a top end PC because it's requirements were head and shoulders above other FPS games, only maybe worse. It would take even longer to make too, I think. But it'd be awesome ...

 

[casual]

I think if the PC modding community thinks making such games so easy to perfect, they should just start from scratch and do it properly from the ground up? Just like those that "fixed" f1 2010. Why do you guys need Kaz? Just do it properly right if its so easy?

 

[Aureus]

I think if the PC modding community thinks making such games so easy to perfect, they should just start from scratch and do it properly from the ground up? Just like those that "fixed" f1 2010. Why do you guys need Kaz? Just do it properly right if its so easy?

What exactly has lead you to believe that the PC modding community thinks making games is easy? The modding community does much of the same work as developers. What they don't do is create their own engines. However a lot of developers don't do that. Hence why so many games use the Unreal Engine. Click here to see just who uses the Unreal Engine. Its worth pointing out that the Unreal Engine was made by a PC developer, was first seen on the PC and is used today to power many of the best selling games on Consoles.

I've made levels for different first person shooters. Its a hard thing to do, and making and perfecting a single level can take a very long time all on its own. Building an entire game requires the efforts of dozens of people over years. The modding community adds their own individual pieces to the game and can apply the polish to a game after a developer has finished. In some cases though they do the same thing as the developers on that list did. They take an already existing engine and use it to build their own game. That's how Counter Strike and Team Fortress were created in the first place.

 

[Terronium-12]

Because the PC gaming market is bigger than the console gaming market right?

Everyone knows, or should know, that the PC market is a niche. However, whatever point you're attempting to prove is moot at best - where do you think all of those console "innovations" came from?

You PC guys are confusing things, GT5 was built in spite of the downfalls of PS3. PS3 is not a PC that you can shove a better GPU into or upgrade to more and faster RAM. It's stuck from day one in a mold that one day will be the detriment of programmers as they will exhaust everything the system has to offer. All PS3 games were built within the confines of the PS3, no one dev had a more powerful spec they played to level playing field and you get to see which of them can deliver top notch goods. Not one trying to out horsepower the other and in the end have you opening that wallet.

An argument that everyone attempts to use, but always fails at. You know PC games are entirely scalable, right? The reason some games like Crysis, or F.E.A.R (in it's time) were so demanding because the graphic engine itself was made to be future proof to some degree, requiring as little improvement as possible. As a result they're usually optimized for technologies that aren't commercially available yet.

What I want to hammer into the hard headed PC elitists around here is PS3 with all it's age and weaknesses can output amazing looking graphics and game play, casual gamers don't give a rats ass about how high the resolution is on your PC screen, nor do they care about the power it has. Does the game look pretty, is it fun and how easy is it to grab a controller and start playing it. PC gaming for as ground breaking as it has been, is still a closet love affair. I've seen many a televised PC gaming event of those awesome Quake II games, but still that is not going to get PC gaming the kind of recognition, interest or mass marketing as console gaming. PS2 basically ushered in the era of DVD by itself! PS3 to a lesser extent pretty much did the same for Blu-Ray, killing HD-DVD along the way. Never has PC been that influential, well unless of course it's a Mac.

I'm pretty sure you're grasping at straws now; Quake II, really? Quake. II. A game that was released in 1997 - that's your basis for this argument? Also, if you want to be purely technical, MIcrosoft killed HD-DVD by not offering native support for it with the 360, as they were one the major supporters of the format, yet, chose to support it in the most naive way possible - an add-on that cost $199.

PC gaming is still relatively small compared to console gaming, case and point walk into Best Buy and see how many people are in the PS3, 360 and Wii section and then check how many are in the PC game section. I have never seen Best Buy throwing promotions about buying any PC game, cell phones get more attention than PC's at retail. WoW is PC largest game by far and that about get's it's own adverts and recently too, over the years there have been adverts at the odd occasion advertising a PC only game. Now it's all console games with PC tagged on the end, and they say that just before the advert ends. Ever wonder why majority of Dev's chose a console over a PC? Console games tend to quickly get lapped up and garner brisk sales in a short time, also exposure to people who would never touch the game if it were PC only.

Again, no one is arguing that the PC market is niche, that's already been agreed upon...and has been for years. However, you seem to, again, be grasping at straws - WoW, Crysis, Crysis: Warhead, F.E.A.R, Portal, Far Cry, Far Cry 2, Team Fortress, etc...these are all games that have been heavily advertised at some point or another.

Just to be as ignorant as you seem to be, one could very well argue that PC games don't need advertisement. Why? The results speak for themselves; read any PC gamer magazine and compare the control scalability between a ported PC title and the original - guess which one has a higher score 9 times out of 10? The original PC version.

Someone posted some weird comment about console gamers being less social that PC gamers. That was incredibly funny considering that I have never heard anyone say I'm going over to John's place to play some WoW with him, you hear I'm going to John's to play PS3, 360; even the women get in on it I'm going to Marcia's to do some Wii Fit, it's part of our workout plan. Won't ever hear a PC gamer saying something like that, unless you guy are meeting at the local net cafe, which is off limits to gamers as only apple toting socialites congregate there. Dude seriously your wife thinks you're a nerd for playing games on a PC, no matter how cool you think it is. It's a stigma that's going to stick for quite some time. I think it's artistic to watch someone playing Quake II on a PC, but it's still doesn't compare to laughs of watching someone make an ass of themselves using Kinect and Move in a living room full of fun.

Full of nonsense and ignorance here. I'm a nerd - hooray! Your point? Also, like someone already suggested you may want to look into what a PC's online capability is before spouting about again. Remote servers that are never taken down (unlike console games), LAN parties, LAN party events....I've made my point.

 

[otago]

I don't know why are you arguing. PC gaming is dead so if you are gamer - you have both consoles and have no problems with playing GT 5

I have been playing on PC since 1990, but around 2005 I realized that there is simply nothing to play anymore. Pretty much every famous PC series and even genres died out.

 

[Terronium-12]

I don't know why are you arguing. PC gaming is dead so if you are gamer - you have both consoles and have no problems with playing GT 5

I have been playing on PC since 1990, but around 2005 I realized that there is simply nothing to play anymore. Pretty much every famous PC series and even genres died out.

PC gaming is dead?

Wow, really? When did this happen...because last I checked there are new games for the PC coming out every month, some even have multiple release in the same month.

Every famous PC...series...died out?

 

[otago]

Shift mroe complex driving? BWHAHAHAHA, BWHAHAHAHA, LMAO. no.

Yeah, so how I rate this games:

Forza 3 - top notch physics mostly buried under autosteering and enormous traction. Fan to drive factor 3/5

GT 5 - fake hand made physics, not too much is really calculated but reminds real car behavior and more fan to drive than Forza 3, driving 4/5

Shift - for two lowest tiers driving is great, 5/5. Physics has obvious flaws like some cars turns inside while hard braking so you can pass corkscrew at almost twice the speed. Not gonna happen in real life

 

[otago]

PC gaming is dead?

Wow, really? When did this happen...because last I checked there are new games for the PC coming out every month, some even have multiple release in the same month.

Every famous PC...series...died out?

Give you one example: in 1998 there were 5 great flight sims (and there were others, not great but good)

Last PC flight sim? 2003. Are you kidding me? (yeah, I know, there is 15-th addon to IL 2 but it doesn't count)

PC gaming is not just dead, it's dead for almost decade.

 

[Aureus]

I have been playing on PC since 1990, but around 2005 I realized that there is simply nothing to play anymore. Pretty much every famous PC series and even genres died out.

Some games have died out. Other games have 'moved' to the consoles such that they release for both. Games like say Mass Effect and Dragon Age come from a PC developer who releases the superior versions to the PC. ( not just textures but more features, oh and mod support in the case of Dragon Age ). And still others are going strong. Like say Star Craft and Civilizations off the top of my head.

Give you one example: in 1998 there were 5 great flight sims (and there were others, not great but good)

Last PC flight sim? 2003. Are you kidding me? (yeah, I know, there is 15-th addon to IL 2 but it doesn't count)

PC gaming is not just dead, it's dead for almost decade.

Realistic flight sims aren't on the console either. They've simply died out. Likewise space sims are sorely missing as well. They're also not on the console.

 

[ChromeBallz]

I don't know why are you arguing. PC gaming is dead so if you are gamer - you have both consoles and have no problems with playing GT 5

I have been playing on PC since 1990, but around 2005 I realized that there is simply nothing to play anymore. Pretty much every famous PC series and even genres died out.

That's because 99% of PC games are a console ports ever since the 360 was released. Publishers identified their primary market as the one which has potentially the most customers.

The PC is easier to develop for technically, but much more difficult to support because of the billions of different configurations. Crysis is a good example of why the PC market is so difficult: They made it for machines that didn't really exist yet because they wanted to push the technology and make it 'futureproof'. Of course, this meant that they vastly reduced their potential market, because while the game can run on much lower spec machines it just didn't look good enough. Hence Crysis was pirated so much and sold relatively little, though it did make its costs back (and then some).

This is a catch-22 for PC developers, technology-wise. Make it look too good and you reduce your market because of the necessary hardware, make it look too bad and you reduce it again because it won't be viewed as a good enough game. On consoles this is simply not a problem at all because they are a proven, uniform system that has sold millions of times already - Your potential market is effectively bigger even though there's a LOT more PC's in the world.

With the advent of World of Warcraft and the 360/PS3, PC gaming went out of the picture not because there's no market but because the other markets are so much easier to sell products in.


Now, console ports are fine in theory, but rather than making the effort on properly adapting the game to the PC the developer usually opts for easy street, "making it work" to sell a few more games than he would have on just consoles, but nothing more. I have to think of an example of how to do it right: Mass Effect. The PC port was utterly brilliant, vastly improved on the 360 version. Bad example: Force Unleashed. Utterly bad port, 1 to 1 job just to make a few more sales, and sadly the latter is the standard lately.

PC gaming is not dying, not even by a long shot, but it'll take a while before developers stop trying to develop a one-time physical good and start thinking about a 'product' which isn't based on day-1 sales - Something people will happily pay a premium for. PC gaming has evolved into a different market than consoles a while ago, but that hasn't sunk in yet.

 

[Terronium-12]

Give you one example: in 1998 there were 5 great flight sims (and there were others, not great but good)

Last PC flight sim? 2003. Are you kidding me? (yeah, I know, there is 15-th addon to IL 2 but it doesn't count)

PC gaming is not just dead, it's dead for almost decade.

Okay, okay...let me get this straight without laughing....

PC gaming is dead because, based on your example, a new flight simulator hasn't been released since 2003? Which, in and of itself is a lie - Flight Simulator X was released in '06, and a new one just entitled "Microsoft Flight" is coming out soon.

Despite that, however, this was your basis for the argument you presented....

Honestly?

And this is way off-topic now.

 

[Mike712]

Yes, it would be better if it had been developed for PC.

First of all there wouldn't be all the worthless stuff in the game to cater to the lowest common denominator, the typical console gamer, GT would be more focused on the core aspect, the racing if it was on the PC.

Secondly the mod community would soon have acess to the tools necercary to create new content, instead of there being 1000 cars and 20 odd tracks there would be an almost unlimited number, some of which created with a huge amount of care and detail(ala GTR, Rfactor and iRacing).

Yes the development budget wouldn't have been $60 million but it appears that most of that investment has been wasted as it is with the game in it's current state because of needless features like photo travel and 3d support.

 

[royuncg]

It would take a ridiculously expensive PC to realize Kaz's vision. Probably about 5K. PC graphics aren't too much better looking then PS3, actually Crisis is the only PC game that looks better then Killzone 2 witch is a PS3 game. Todays CPU's still aren't much faster then the PS3's and most have even less cores. This is why you wont see PS4 for a while, technology hasn't improved much since PS3 launched 4 years ago.

Please don't take this the wrong way...but you have no idea what you are talking about. PC graphics are ten times betters, max resolutions are a lot higher and so are the textures, lighting, etc. And it does not not take a 5k PC to best the playstation 3, it can be done for under a grand.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Consoles and PC games/rigs are also marketed differently:

Consoles:
One size fits all
Ease of use for all ages
Low intimidation factor
Everything in one box for 4+ years

PC:
Generally caters to "high end" tech
PC tech is intimidating
Money = performance
High customization and performance potential

The technology that the consoles (and console games) are going to be using in the future is going to come from high end PC gaming technology. The development and quality of those games are going to be a product of the advancement in the PC gaming community.

The only reasons consoles are more popular is the price for performance and intimidation factors, when considering the step up to a gaming PC. It is much easier to obtain a black box, that plays DVDs, that can be bought at Wal-Mart, when compared to what it takes to build a decent gaming PC.

Like I said in my previous post. If console games are going to be developed on PCs, PC technology and optimization, should be considered first. Consoles should be toned down, highly supported, gaming systems where gaming PCs should be high end, user customized, performance built machines.

A PS3 is like a Scion TC, where a gaming PC has the potential to be an LFA. Gaming PCs and PC gaming will be around as long or longer than consoles because PC gaming technology is what makes console technology better.

 

[otago]

Okay, okay...let me get this straight without laughing....

PC gaming is dead because, based on your example, a new flight simulator hasn't been released since 2003? Which, in and of itself is a lie - Flight Simulator X was released in '06, and a new one just entitled "Microsoft Flight" is coming out soon.

MS Flight simulator is same flight simulator as simulator of bus driver (there is actually one, on PC of course) - is a racing simulator. Besides, developers of MFS were closed.

There is simple reason why PC gaming is dead: there is no exclusives left except Blizzard games. Crysis 2 - became multiplat, Witcher 2 - multiplat and so on.

Graphics debates are also pretty doubtful, PC optimization is extremely poor. There is no way to optimize an engine for 2,4, and 6 cores at the same time, 2,4, or 8 Gb RAM and 1000 different video cards.

 

[Aureus]

MS Flight simulator is same flight simulator as simulator of bus driver (there is actually one, on PC of course) - is a racing simulator. Besides, developers of MFS were closed.

And yet the flight sim category is the 'dead' category. Not PC gaming.

There is simple reason why PC gaming is dead: there is no exclusives left except Blizzard games. Crysis 2 - became multiplat, Witcher 2 - multiplat and so on.

Civilization, Total War and The Sims. They don't exist huh? Any number of games are not multiplatform. Nor is a gaming system 'dead' when people release mainly multiplatform games for it. Especially not when the games that are released for it are, often enough, the superior version. See games like Oblivion, Fallout, Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Oh and aren't most of the good games on PS3 multiplatform?

Graphics debates are also pretty doubtful, PC optimization is extremely poor. There is no way to optimize an engine for 2,4, and 6 cores at the same time, 2,4, or 8 Gb RAM and 1000 different video cards.

You build your game. You let people use what they have to render it. You don't try to optimize it for each particular setup. That was an issue in the past when there were not industry standards. Today all games use DirectX. You build your game to DirectX, you don't have to worry about graphics cards. Also there aren't '1000s' of different video cards. There are generally only two, four or six different 'cards.' And those are simply the last few generations of cards from ATI/Nvidia. The same architecture is used up and down the board each generation, just of different tune.

 

[otago]

Today all games use DirectX. You build your game to DirectX, you don't have to worry about graphics cards.

And you pay high price for it. PC DirectX is high level abstractions which transfers through some specific drivers and so on.

If you would work directly with only one fixed configuration the code will be much faster, like assembler vs Visual C

 

[Aureus]

And you pay high price for it. PC DirectX is high level abstractions which transfers through some specific drivers and so on.

And yet the games still look better and it means you don't have to try and optimize your game for every graphics card out there. Even when you had to the only real competitor was 3dFX glide and OpenGL. The PS3 pays the same 'price' seeing as it uses OpenGL. Which is the same thing, an API library.

Interesting how you didn't care to address the rest of the post.

 

[otago]

And yet the games still look better and it means you don't have to try and optimize your game for every graphics card out there.

This is debatable. Shift is a best looking PC racer, here is some comparison:

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/screenshots/original/2010/11/GT5_Shift_Vergleich_05.jpg

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/screenshots/original/2010/11/GT5_Shift_Vergleich_08.jpg

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/screenshots/original/2010/11/GT5_Shift_Vergleich_03.jpg

I say on good looking tracks Polyphony wins (and in terms how cars look it's a double win!)

 

[Bigbazz]

How can PC optimisation be really poor when my old clonker of a 2006/2007 frankinstien butcher piece can run anything with 1920x1080 resolution and high quality settings at a decent frame rate, this is just ignorance.


It seems to be that you're throwing around you need a mega computer to run any games, well thats not the case, there are computers for maybe £400 that can out perform mine.


It doesnt matter if its easier to optimise to the PS3, the point is that the PS3 is a dated old piece of hardware and it doesnt even compare to the PC's of 3 years ago, so you're optimising it to a weak system, however well you do that its still a weak system and the quality will suffer, the ammount they had to sacrifice on GT5 is testiment to that, the low quality textures and jaggies, not to mention the terrible shadows.

Games on the PC are not as well optimised, but the difference is small and the average PC will run anything at a higher quality than the PS3 can because the average PC has so much spare performance over the old PS3, top pc's will already be far ahead of the PS4 before the PS4 is even released.

This is how it always has been.


PC gaming is far from dead, flight simulators are not made because flight simulators don't sell, they are a tiny market even compared to sim racing. You only need a steam account and an idea of the ammount of games they sell to realise how strong the PC gaming market is.



At the end of the day, would GT5 be better on the PC? yes because the PC is more powerful, the average computer that most of us have is far more powerful than a PS3, and the gaming machines are in another league again. And Power = Performance, there would not need to be any compromises.

They did it with F1 2010 and it worked, the PC version looked massively better than the consoles, had better online play, better force feedback and was moddable to improve it further. If they did GT5 multiformat in the same way it would be the same story, much better on the PC, but GT5 is meant to sell playstations, and thats why it wont be on the PC.

 

[Aureus]

This is debatable. Shift is a best looking PC racer, here is some comparison:

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/screenshots/original/2010/11/GT5_Shift_Vergleich_05.jpg

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/screenshots/original/2010/11/GT5_Shift_Vergleich_08.jpg

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/screenshots/original/2010/11/GT5_Shift_Vergleich_03.jpg

I say on good looking tracks Polyphony wins (and in terms how cars look it's a double win!)

Shift is a console port and wasn't upgraded for the PC. It also makes extensive use of blurring. GT5 may very well be the best looking racing game. Though people have already compared it to other games in this thread. All I know is that Laguna Seca looks like crap in GT5 if you look anywhere but the pavement of the track itself.

Also interesting that this is the only thing you decided to address in my post, and didn't seem to notice that the PS3 suffers from the same 'problem' via OpenGL as PCs do via DirectX.

I can't read German mate. Could you give me the link to the original article for those screen shots so I can run it through translate? I'm curious if that's a comparison between the PS3 versions of Shift and GT5 or the PC version of shift and the PS3 version of GT5 ( and why would they have even done that as an article anyway? )

 

[Bigbazz]

F1 2010 is still the best looking Racing game, the pc version that is. Though the premium car models in GT5 are obviously up there on an exceptional level, the PS3 doesnt do it justice, too many jaggies.

 

[otago]

They did it with F1 2010 and it worked, the PC version looked massively better than the consoles

F1 2010 runs in higher resolution on PC, but doesn't look good compare to GT5.

Got the point? The best looking PS3 games are Uncharted 2, Killzone (3), GT 5. All exclusives

I played Dirt 2 demo and honestly it looked like crap compare to GT 5, low polys cars, second class reflections, horrid brawn-yellow lighting (they called it next-gen filter) and so on. DX11 and higher res won't fix anything.

 

[otago]

I can't read German mate. Could you give me the link to the original article for those screen shots so I can run it through translate?

It's more like screens comparison collection, than article

article:

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/Gran-Tur...gleich-Holt-sich-GT5-die-Grafik-Krone-801709/

screens:

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/Gran-Tur...5-die-Grafik-Krone-801709/galerie/1465634/#tp

 

[Aureus]

F1 2010 runs in higher resolution on PC, but doesn't look good compare to GT5.

Others disagree. : shrug :

Got the point? The best looking PS3 games are Uncharted 2, Killzone (3), GT 5. All exclusives

Of course. Because anyone making a multiplatform game can't be assed to optomize for OpenGL when the PC and the Xbox both use DirectX.

I played Dirt 2 demo and honestly it looked like crap compare to GT 5, low polys cars, second class reflections, horrid brawn-yellow lighting (they called it next-gen filter) and so on. DX11 and higher res won't fix anything.

You played that on your what exactly?

 

[Aureus]

It's more like screens comparison collection, than article

article:

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/Gran-Tur...gleich-Holt-sich-GT5-die-Grafik-Krone-801709/

screens:

http://www.gamesaktuell.de/Gran-Tur...5-die-Grafik-Krone-801709/galerie/1465634/#tp

Danke. I can't find anything in the article that tells me or suggests to me that those are screens from the PC version of Shift.

 

[Terronium-12]

The replies in this thread just become more and more meaningless, it's a shame to the OP as this has now turned into a tirade with several people throwing around a bunch of information that's just far from true, and has nothing to do with the originally proposed question.

Lock requested.

 

[otago]

You played that on your what exactly?

I don't play Codemasters games. CMR 2 was already more like driving vacuum cleaners and since then they haven't improved much. I play demos for like 10 minutes and it's more than enough for GRID, Dirt, etc

Just for you information: if you set 5000x3000 resolution it won't improve polygons count, lighting and reflections even a bit

 

[otago]

The replies in this thread just become more and more meaningless, it's a shame to the OP as this has now turned into a tirade with several people throwing around a bunch of information that's just far from true, and has nothing to do with the originally proposed question.

Lock requested.

Just because you said so? And who are you exactly?

 

[Aureus]

I don't play Codemasters games. CMR 2 was already more like driving vacuum cleaners and since then they haven't improved much. I play demos for like 10 minutes and it's more than enough for GRID, Dirt, etc

Yes but you played it on your PC or your PS3? And at what detail settings on your PC... and even then as pointed out, Shift is a console port, and not one that is going to receive much attention.

Just for you information: if you set 5000x3000 resolution it won't improve polygons count, lighting and reflections even a bit

No it does not improve polygon counts, lighting or reflections. It does increase how smoothly something can be rendered. Something designed to be rendered at 2560x1440 looks amazing compared to something designed to be rendered at 1280x720. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand this. But when you can create an image using smaller pixels, it means better graphics are possible.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6240138/index.html

360 vs PS3 vs PC, one game. They didn't even bother increasing the res on the PC to 'make it even'.