This is not to start a war or anything. I'm just sharing my own thoughts here.

I didn't pay mind to people who said consoles hold back progress as games like Far Cry 3, Batman Arkham City, Borderlands 2 and Bioshock Infinite looked beautiful to me. People said PC games are console ports, but then I thought: How can the be console ports when they look better, so there is no progress being halted.

Then came the new consoles, and I finally started seeing their point. A boost in hardware with even a meager custom GTX 660 in PS4 provided a pretty significant leap in graphics (Far Cry 3 vs Far Cry 4, Dragon Age 2 vs DAI, Batman AO vs AK). The difference is day and night, It's amazing.

I went back and examined last gen games on PC, and for the most part, Devs do just port the console versions over to PC with standard upgrades (bit more detailed textures, resolution and FPS). The real leap happened when new consoles got released as said above.

Am I upset with the slow progress? Not really. But it would be nice if Devs pushed the PC hardware more instead of porting all the time. What do you think about this topic? Share your thoughts. Are you happy with the steady progress in graphics or do you want PCs to advance in graphics at a faster rate. Do you think consoles hold back graphics to a degree?

I don't want graphical advances on either PC or console. Screw them.

I want better gameplay; we should utilize the new hardware and software to develop better and deeper games, not for developing prettier but hollow games.

Actually, I think it would be nice if they focused on creating a game with decent length and depth rather than a linear, forgettable 6 hour long game that was simply cut and paste from a predecessor (gross generalizing I know but this is the norm, not the exception).

Fix this first, THEN we can talk about graphics.........

I don't know, I'm pretty satisfied with games released so far this gen like Witcher 3, Far Cry 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, Dying Light, Mad Max, Metal Gear Solid 5, Alien Isolation, and BloodBorn (PS4). These games have good amount of freedom and long campaigns, fun side content, good stories (some of them), and fun game play. Looking forward to Dishonored 2, Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, Deus Ex ManKind Dividied, Hitman, Doom, Mirror's Edge 2 etc. Pretty exciting stuff happening in gaming for me.

Plus it isn't like a good game can be made good using just the gameplay and story. A good game includes remarkable gameplay, a story that grows on you, catchy music and graphics (but I don't criticize a game for graphics unless I really can't see a thing). There are games which ditched an aspect or more in order to invest in an aspect heavily and still sold well (Minecraft), and these are usually exceptions as they are very great if their lacking in a department or two is overlooked. However, I never heard of a game which invested heavily in graphics, ditched the other departments and then.......... was beloved alike Minecraft.

If one really wanted graphics, they'd go for a movie. Superior graphics than the latest of games will ever provide. So that's why I don't see why this whole 'consoles are holding back PCs' graphical power' argument should ever exist. Talk about developers holding back potential gameplay, poor music, rushing releases, etc, we're already great in the graphics department but poor in the others sometimes.

Or we can go back to the era of FMV games :)

Why does it matter? A game can have fucking ASCII graphics and still be a good game.

Part of the issue is that consoles represent a snapshot of mid-level PC hardware at any given time - basically the hardware that most PC gamers will be able to support at that time. Of course, this means that when the lead platform for these games is a console, not only the console, but also the low-level PC hardware that many gamers possess provides the baseline for the underlying technology.

One of the advantages of the PS3/360 generation lasting so long was that system requirements were kept relatively low, meaning that even the most modern games would run on relatively low-cost hardware - you could build a workable gaming PC at console-level for $400. Now that the PS4/One is out, PC gaming has become a rather expensive proposition again - low-end PCs are only useful for simpler indie games, mid-level PCs in the range of $600 can barely deliver console-quality performance. When it came to getting more bang for your buck, PC gaming hit a sweet spot around 2008 when a gaming PC with the same price as a PS3 or 360 would actually offer superior performance.

The problem is that while scalability is the optimum, very few games are so scalable that they can both support low-end hardware and utilise high-end hardware. Something has to give way, and while you may have spent $1500 on your high-end rig, the problem is that you are an unprofitable minority and that the publishers need to cater not only for consoles but also those on low-end systems.

Tell that to those that started gaming on the N64 :P

I'm actually quite happy that graphics don't push PC hardware as hard and at such an insane pace as they did back in 90's, so that I can keep up with recent releases without having to buy a new computer or graphic card every year. When it comes to graphics, I care more for the artistic vision than the technical progress anyway.

That might be going a bit too far.

That's not ASCII. This is ASCII.

I think many people forget that immersion is also a big part of games and contributes to the fun factor, and graphics are important to pull you into the experience. Games like Witcher 3 are a testament to that. Gaming isn't just a fun hobby for me, it's also a way for me to get lost in different worlds.

Oops, my bad