I'd suggest you take off your fanboy googles and take a better look again
God of war looks like a next gen game compared to DMC5
I'd suggest you take off your fanboy googles and take a better look again
God of war looks like a next gen game compared to DMC5
Still no shadows from the flash light. I believe the pom only self shadows from the sun.
That honestly just looks like the directional shading from the normal. Self shadowing POM looks different.Hm, Shadows are right and above the Stones, at the Center of the light are no shadows, thats not the sun or something it looks ok to me
DMC5 is a linear action game while RDR2 is an open world sandbox.DMC5 runs at 60 fps during gameplay.
RDR2 is a 27 fps warrior.
If gamers respected 60 fps more, devs would target it more often.
Such a shame....
Yeh, you can't compare the scope and technical detail of RDR2 to a game that's as linear as DMCV.DMC5 runs at 60 fps during gameplay.
RDR2 is a 27 fps warrior.
If gamers respected 60 fps more, devs would target it more often.
Such a shame....
I'd suggest you take off your fanboy googles and take a better look again
God of war looks like a next gen game compared to DMC5
That's why we need (hybrid) raytracing.Man those reflection next to the fountain on the street makes the whole scene look like ass.
Real talk.
It's okay to like DMC 5's look, but its environments are not on Metro's level. You wanted a "single setting"? I provided several. DMC 5 has no answer for them. Either you didn't play this on a PC maxed out, or you're just truly in the honeymoon phase of a recent release.
Did you just compare a open world game to a single player experience?
Detroit is Cutscene models: The game though.Nope. RDR2, Horizon, Uncharted, Detroit, GOW, Forza Horizon, GT Sport, Metro, The Order all look better....Among others. Assets outside the cutscene models aren't high quality and shaders are not on par with the best
RDR2 is definitely debatable (and only on the 1X). However there is nothing that the PS4 exclusives have over this game.
You must be new to Veteran X.In case if you didn't know, graphic assets in RDR2 between Pro and X1X version are completely the same. But yeah, only X1X is relevant, others not so. :/
Does anyone have any zoomed in shots of in-gameplay character models in this game? I'd like to see how they look outside of cutscenes.
In case if you didn't know, graphic assets in RDR2 between Pro and X1X version are completely the same. But yeah, only X1X is relevant, others not so. :/
X1X renders in 4k thereby yielding a much better approximation to the pixels. I have both and 1X clearly stomps on PS4Pro with image quality.
I'm not talking about resolution ( of course X1X version has a higher res ), but about assets, and they are the same in both versions. Anway, why bother
That was never actually true about TLOU, since cutscene models can't just be ported to gameplay easily, but for DMCV i could see them doing a next gen version with LDK mode though, but with BC & 4K/60fps on X already, it kinda seems pointless to make a next gen version.I remember the big improvement in TLOU for PS4 was that they used cutscene-models in game. So I'm conflicted about playing now or waiting until the next-gen version.
It's like you almost believe your own bullshitX1X renders in 4k thereby yielding a much better approximation to the pixels. I have both and 1X clearly stomps on PS4Pro with image quality.
It's funny how the best part of DMC 5 (the models) is the worst part of Exodus while Exodus has insanely detailed environments (that are basically king currently even above in my opinion RDR2),is also the worst part of DMC5.
Holy fucking shit .. how have I not noticed this before today .. (the fingers shaking part)
That finger strength. Now we know why Elena deals with his bullshit
Holy fucking shit .. how have I not noticed this before today .. (the fingers shaking part)
Funny you say that Digital Foundry actually compared it to FFVII Advent Children which was a real head turner back in the day and DMC 5 looks MUCH better like that and at 60fps on base consoles even. Its fucking madness.I just want to correct that it is DMC and not DmC.
But yes, this is indeed one of the best looking games even on consoles. The cutscenes might as well be pre-rendered movies.
One neat advantage that metro exodus has with ray tracing is that its ingame character models look much better than they would in other games. Cutscenes put like 5 or 6 different lights on characters with 2 usually being shadow casting. On the other hand then in gameplay there is usually just one shadow casting light and some completely inaccurate light probe driving the skin shading and the character's overall look, or sometimes not even a shadow casting light at all if they are in shadow! Then you get really poor results, like this:
Funny you say that Digital Foundry actually compared it to FFVII Advent Children which was a real head turner back in the day and DMC 5 looks MUCH better like that and at 60fps on base consoles even. Its fucking madness.
One neat advantage that metro exodus has with ray tracing is that its ingame character models look much better than they would in other games. Cutscenes put like 5 or 6 different lights on characters with 2 usually being shadow casting. On the other hand then in gameplay there is usually just one shadow casting light and some completely inaccurate light probe driving the skin shading and the character's overall look, or sometimes not even a shadow casting light at all if they are in shadow! Then you get really poor results, like this:
But in Metro Exodus with ray tracing there is always at least 1 directional shadow casting light (the global illumination) hitting a character no matter what outdoors, and then 2 if they are in direct sun light as well. It means the already good shading is actually being driven by proper lighting information.
Not a cutscene, but gameplay, and their shading still holds up even though they are a majority in shadow:
Or the character Sam here in gameplay being completely in shadow, but still looking like a shadow casting light is hitting him due to the GI:
Well, not in cutscenes at all (where characters look really good). It is crazy below 60 fps in cutscenes on all consoles.
These show it off really well what I mean, thanks for them (I do not have UC4 installed at the moment). Those areas in shadow have no directionality to the lighting on them beyond a generic one, hence how the skin is of all the same lighting intesnity all over it minus those parts where geometry gets closer together and are darkened by SSAO (which is also, directionless).Some better Uncharted 4 character model close up gameplay shots. Standard PS4 not Pro.
Some better Uncharted 4 character model close up gameplay shots. Standard PS4 not Pro.
I don't think Veteran has ever liked anything from the PS4In case if you didn't know, graphic assets in RDR2 between Pro and X1X version are completely the same. But yeah, only X1X is relevant, others not so. :/
Crysis came out 12 years agoDont sleep on Shadow of the Tombraider! The jungle levels are crysis level of w
But does it have better shaders?
Reading this post reminded me of the times I listened to Jon Carmack. You simultaneously feel like you understand everything and yet feel lost. All games have so much to offer over each other crowning a king does disservice to all of them. Thank you for taking out time to write this. Great post.I'm not interested in these petty debates about which AAA game 'trounces' the other when they're all so similar in quality and generally look amazing, given the constraints of real-time graphics, especially on consoles. They all still pale in comparison to real life, but as approximations, they've reached a point where you can really just appreciate them, even if the fidelity isn't 100% photorealistic.
What I will say is that, there are very few people on internet forums who have demonstrated that they OBJECTIVELY understand good material rendering/shading, and WHY it's good. It's why you'll get a bunch of people impressed with scenes that have high specularity on everything, even when it's not appropriate. Similarly, people tend to be not as impressed with scenes that prominently feature nearly lambertian materials, even when they're completely physically plausible. But none of that has anything to do with any objective metric for evaluating the quality of a render. Each material from the real world has unique properties that influence the visual appearance of electromagnetic radiation, and understanding how close developers can match the fidelity of these characteristics from the real world is a matter of understanding science, not just aesthetics.
The rendering solutions for some material characteristics are nearly imperceptible to the laymen, like the ones that represent the unique backscattered reflections that can be seen on velvet and other cloths (most people will notice the anisotropic reflections, however). Hell, I still know 3D artists who have difficulty in perceiving the difference in microfacet distribution between GGX and Multi-scatter GGX, and these people work with principled BSDF shaders for a living! I certainly don't expect the average person to look at some screenshots and pick out the difference between, say, Christensen-Burley SSS and random walked SSS, or even SSS through basic gaussian functions, for instance.
The point here is that the complexity - and subsequently, the computation load - for rendering certain materials isn't immediately obvious to most people, so it may be difficult for them to appreciate the fact that one game is more technically demanding than the other when it comes to shader quality, mainly because, to their eyes, the games look pretty similar in terms of fidelity. To me, this speaks more to the accomplishments of developers who can author materials that rely on cheap approximations than the ones who rely on complex simulations. If the consumer can't tell the difference, I'd say that's a pretty damn good approximation.
My personal opinion is that games with good enough material rendering that also run at high framerates are more impressive than the ones that don't, because you usually have to compromise one for the other. In that regard, I'd say DMC 5 is a very impressive game, from a technical perspective. The ' new king of graphics'? Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I'd say that it's more impressive than some people give it credit for. Star Citizen is probably the game that has yet to be dethroned, as its feature-set is just overwhelmingly comprehensive. Of the released games, Metro Exodus is really setting a new standard in the lighting department, even if some of the textures could be improved a bit.
Overall, I just want to see more appreciation for the technical achievements of all of these games because it's a bit surreal that this is the kind of quality that we're getting these days, and it's only going to get better. My two cents.
Reading this post reminded me of the times I listened to Jon Carmack. You simultaneously feel like you understand everything and yet feel lost. All games have so much to offer over each other crowning a king does disservice to all of them. Thank you for taking out time to write this. Great post.
This is too much of a level-headed response for this thread.I'm not interested in these petty debates about which AAA game 'trounces' the other when they're all so similar in quality and generally look amazing, given the constraints of real-time graphics, especially on consoles. They all still pale in comparison to real life, but as approximations, they've reached a point where you can really just appreciate them, even if the fidelity isn't 100% photorealistic.
What I will say is that, there are very few people on internet forums who have demonstrated that they OBJECTIVELY understand good material rendering/shading, and WHY it's good. It's why you'll get a bunch of people impressed with scenes that have high specularity on everything, even when it's not appropriate. Similarly, people tend to be not as impressed with scenes that prominently feature nearly lambertian materials, even when they're completely physically plausible. But none of that has anything to do with any objective metric for evaluating the quality of a render. Each material from the real world has unique properties that influence the visual appearance of electromagnetic radiation, and understanding how close developers can match the fidelity of these characteristics from the real world is a matter of understanding science, not just aesthetics.
The rendering solutions for some material characteristics are nearly imperceptible to the laymen, like the ones that represent the unique backscattered reflections that can be seen on velvet and other cloths (most people will notice the anisotropic reflections, however). Hell, I still know 3D artists who have difficulty in perceiving the difference in microfacet distribution between GGX and Multi-scatter GGX, and these people work with principled BSDF shaders for a living! I certainly don't expect the average person to look at some screenshots and pick out the difference between, say, Christensen-Burley SSS and random walked SSS, or even SSS through basic gaussian functions, for instance.
The point here is that the complexity - and subsequently, the computation load - for rendering certain materials isn't immediately obvious to most people, so it may be difficult for them to appreciate the fact that one game is more technically demanding than the other when it comes to shader quality, mainly because, to their eyes, the games look pretty similar in terms of fidelity. To me, this speaks more to the accomplishments of developers who can author materials that rely on cheap approximations than the ones who rely on complex simulations. If the consumer can't tell the difference, I'd say that's a pretty damn good approximation.
My personal opinion is that games with good enough material rendering that also run at high framerates are more impressive than the ones that don't, because you usually have to compromise one for the other. In that regard, I'd say DMC 5 is a very impressive game, from a technical perspective. The ' new king of graphics'? Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I'd say that it's more impressive than some people give it credit for. Star Citizen is probably the game that has yet to be dethroned, as its feature-set is just overwhelmingly comprehensive. Of the released games, Metro Exodus is really setting a new standard in the lighting department, even if some of the textures could be improved a bit.
Overall, I just want to see more appreciation for the technical achievements of all of these games because it's a bit surreal that this is the kind of quality that we're getting these days, and it's only going to get better. My two cents.