Curiosity Thread

[MatthewDaigneau]

Why is it that movie animation, such as Avatar, looked so much better than games of the same time? I mean, Avatar probably had much more funding, but I am willing to bet that they used similar engines. We are really not even at the same graphics quality as movie CGI. Even GTA V next gen doesn't look as good as some CGI movies in some parts of the map.

[Tony]

Because movies are rendered on 55,000 core farms http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/18/disney-big-hero-6/ over a long time, while your interactive game has only your single machine.

[Raknarg]

It's the difference between having a lot of machines work on something beforehand to give you a finished product versus having one machine that has to give you something right now.

[MatthewDaigneau]

Still though, I can't really complain about graphics when it comes to GTA, unless I want to zoom in on a rock at point blank range with a sniper rifle.

[MatthewDaigneau]

Another thing, how much would the machines and programs cost that the game developers use? I am talking the developers for games that have amazing graphics, such as GTA V, Assassin's Creed, that sort of thing.

[Raknarg]

That's generally not an important factor for game developers. You can usually just choose how much effort you want to put into render all aspects of the graphics. This is why you can have a game like Assassin's Creed run on a PS3, but look significantly better on a PC, because the graphics can scale with the power of your machine.

So this is a hard question to answer. My answer would be probably however much it costs to buy a machine to program with, and also whatever equipment they need to test it on what platform it's going to.

[MatthewDaigneau]

My friends keep saying that the new consoles are powerful enough to have the same graphics as a gaming PC. Suuuuure.

[Insectoid]

Sure they can, when developers gimp the PC version so it can run on consoles.

[MatthewDaigneau]

But aren't PC's made to have better graphics... I don't know, engines?

[Raknarg]

Not quite. They're both computers. The only difference is that consoles used fixed power, where in PC you can make it as weak or strong as you want. Typically when it comes to gaming, PC users will have spent a good amount of money on graphics.

[DemonWasp]

Plus, generally any particular game will use the same engine on PC as it does on the consoles. Many engines are designed to run on the few biggest platforms (Windows, Xbox, PlayStation, and often others) without requiring you to change your code or assets (art, sound, etc) at all.

They may end up looking better on a PC because that PC has more firepower, or they might not because there's a limit to how good a game can look based on its visual design. If there are no higher-resolution assets, and no more computationally-expensive effects to use, the PC version can't look any better than the console version. It can still run faster / smoother.

[MatthewDaigneau]

And PC (usually) has free multiplayer. No Xbox Live, PS Plus, but we still have to worry about uplay.

[Raknarg]

I personally have no issue with UPlay, although I've only played Far Cry through it

[Nathan4102]

I have to object to the comments saying console and PC gaming have relatively similar graphics. Having built a custom PC (And spent a large portion of my budget on a GFX card), I've personally seen a huge difference in graphics on the PC(Games lime BF4), and my console (XB360).

Of course, it depends on your computer though. Most family computers don't have the graphics capability to run high end games, while 100% of Xbox 360's do. That's why people generally prefer console gaming.

[Raknarg]

You would normally be right, except that in certain situations it doesn't matter how strong your computer is, certain engines can only support so much detail. Eventually it plateaus. You can play Mount and Blade on my computer or your gaming PC, it will run more or less equally as well, because the game's quality will plateau after a certain level.