Last gen The Last of Us raised the bar by far compared to Uncharted 2/3. So we can expect a leap in this one.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Sony exclusives are really trying to raise the bar graphically this gen
- Thread starter Gravity Insanity
- Start date
Last gen The Last of Us raised the bar by far compared to Uncharted 2/3. So we can expect a leap in this one.
People self-select exclusives when talking about graphically outstanding games.It's the same regardless of platform. Xbox owners assured themselves that Xbox 360 exclusives had the best graphics, even if there were multiplats with better graphics. People don't generally say, "This is better because it's exclusive". They self-select the exclusive games that helped them justify one console over another. To some extent, it's the same with PC. You see people praising Crysis 1's graphics even though many other games have much better graphics than it. Including Crysis 2 and Crysis 3? Why is that? Because Crysis 1 was a PC exclusive, up until it got ported to consoles and that little chestnut gets forgotten. Why are FEAR's graphics so highly praised? There are many games with far better graphics. Because it was PC exclusive for years. It's a symbol for PC gamers, who often pretend that FEAR wasn't ported pretty much intact to consoles. The underlying philosophy is that these games represented an experience that couldn't be found elsewhere. You see this with PC RTS fans who pretend the console versions of RTS games don't exist.
This is the real secret behind exclusives, or "exclusives". People convince themselves, regardless of the facts, that these games represent something that can't be found elsewhere. They convince themselves that a PS4 exclusive that looks like a typical open world Ubisoft game and plays like a typical open world Ubisoft game is a truly special experience that is the sole domain of Sony. Nobody does it like Sony. How does Sony do it?
But what about all these screenshots of multiplats with graphics that are just as good. Oh, well, you see, that's different. Sony games have HEART and SOUL and stories that make you FEEL THINGS. It's all very wishy washy and you can't really get a fix on anything.
I have no issue with people praising games with amazing graphics. I really love photorealism in gaming. But there's a lot of console fanboyism involved in graphics discussions, as well as PC arrogance. I don't agree with that at all. People care less about true graphical fidelity and more about justifying the team they chose.
Unity's real strength lay in environmental complexity and crowd density, which are hugely CPU taxing. Origins is leaps and bounds beyond it everywhere else. Unity didn't even have dynamic sunlight.
Nothing you said has anything to do with thread topic....no one said third party games don;t look great...This thread..over your head because you just jumped in to downplay . AC doesn't look as good as horizon anyway...thus its not being gushed over, because horizon exists.
The fact that you don't see the transition is a testament to their craft, for sure. But things are dialed back even if you're not perceiving it.
Granted I have not played most of the games in the OP, but even I must admit they look terrific.
I don't know why it's such a controversial notion that cutscenes have much higher graphical fidelity than gameplay. The character models used in Uncharted 4's cutscenes and photo mode are not the same character models used during gameplay. LoD is turned off in photo mode, too. Cutscenes look better because developers have full control over lighting and scene complexity, which means they can pump a crapload of polygons into the characters onscreen. Go play Resident Evil 5, 6, and 7. There is a noticable jump in graphical fidelity when characters are doing closeups. Better lighting, shadows, poly counts, everything. And animation, too. LoD0 models in games, particularly FPS games, are generally not used except during those dramatic "all up in your face" scenes.
This is why people are right to be cautious when discussion games based on nothing more than cutscene footage. It's about being realistic.
If only Sony first party games looked great outside of cut-scenes.
Crysis was unsurpassed for many years and the praise was 100% warranted. It was unlike anything else we had seen at the time on that scale and with that level of coherence.
If you're going to start going down this road of attempting to rewrite history then it would be best if you gave examples of games you think we're better looking at the time.
As for the RTS comment, please just stop and do some research.
Should be taking the crown for one of the worst looking games of this gen, so there is that.
Yes I agree that people wanna validate the gaming platform they choose. But what about the people who game on multiple platforms myself? For example, I don't like online only multiplayer games but I don't run up into threads and go "all of you are wrong, single player or GTFO!"
When I see platform wars going on I just leave, it's a waste of time reading that garbage.
But you probably shouldn't get bothered by people that prefer one games artstyle over another. It's just all a matter of opinion, everyone is different.
GTS is garbage?? lol
Please do tell what games you think arent samy as others or with better grafix?
Yep. What's extra funny is a lot of these guys are all about "first-party devs getting the most out of the platform" and yet refuse to believe that the devs are doing exactly that by changing models, shadow resolution, detail levels, lighting models and more when in cutscenes or photo mode.
I think you misunderstand what I said completely. At the time of its release, Crysis 1 was unparalleled. Same with Far Cry. Same with Crysis 2. Same with Crysis 3. Same with Ryse. And probably the same with Hunt: Showdown. There are still people today claiming that Crysis 1 "looks better than most games released today" and things like that. which is complete nonsense, but Crysis 1 became the poster child for anti-console resentment. Crysis 2 was a massive graphical jump over Crysis 1. Particularly with the DX11 patch. But the fact it was multiplatform meant it was no longer useful for PC owners to brag about how much better their PCs were than consoles. Crysis 3, in turn, was graphically superior to both Crysis 1, Crysis 2, and pretty much everything else at the time. It's still a graphical benchmark on PC that looks absolutely stunning maxed out.
Not sure what your'e talking about. The RTS genre has a long history on consoles. But historically PC RTS fans have pretended that RTS is a genre exclusive to PC. An experience you can't get outside of PC. It involves either pretending console RTS games don't exist or claiming they're absolutely unplayable on consoles. This has been going on since Starcraft 64 and the like.
Exclusive to pet platform + has art style I like consistently outweighs graphical fidelity in online discussions. This has been true since the 5th generation in particular. Notice that nobody is citing actual graphical advancements that these games have that other games don't have. The focus is entirely on art style and their cinematic presentation. There is actually almost zero "graphical" discussion going on here.
Platform exclusivity is all about the perception of an experience you can't get elsewhere. That's what this is all about. Look at the number of people talking as though Sony is somehow the only place you can get mature games with mature, deep storylines. Wolfenstein II was literally last week. It has possibly the best writing and most mature themes in videogames. But you can't justify a console buying decision using it, so it gets ignored.
Yeah see this is exactly why it's hard to participate in hyperbolic threads. There are too many extremes. Something is the greatest or something is shit.
I was very impressed at how this looked. Hopefully Capcom can make the RE2 Remake look amazing too.Most images in this thread don't even show up. :(
I was surprised by the beauty of the Shadow of the Colossus remake. They didn't just update the graphics for this generation, they actually pushed them further in the process.
That's not true. They do exactly that with their gameplay graphics, and push it further when they can outside of that. Everyone knows extra things are added to realtime cutscenes etc. It doesn't take away from what they achieve during gameplay.
People are using imgur, which has currently blocked hotlinking here. It's being worked out.
I'm switching to Xbone X for third party games, but would never even consider selling my Pro just because of Sony's lineup. It might not be 100% consistent, but it's always worth checking out.
I wonder if Shadow of the Colossus is using a new BluePoint engine ? It really seems to be able to update the old game.
after its delay I'm sure it will look better.
It will be running in native 4k so there is that.
Crackdown is not supposed to look realistic, so I'm not sure how well they can make cell shaded graphics look
He implied so by suggesting Sony games looked good because cut-scenes. Sony games are among the best looking right now regardless.
Some people seem bothered by that reality though.
I can literally feel the frustration in his post. I think Microsoft may surprise you in 2018. Cant release a system update and then not wow the fanbase.. Great time to be a gamer
I'm looking at the df video on ac origins right now. This doesn't look as good as horizon, imo. It's kind of a big gap, too.
Native 4K isn't going to make this game look anything special. Still waiting to see the amazing 'cloud tech' that MS was touting years ago.
Last edited:
Agreed. SpidermanPS4 is shaping up to be the best looking Superhero game of all time. Can't freakin' wait for that game.
What makes Detroit any less of a game than something like Monkey Island
The Order still looks pretty freaking great after just 2 years.
But once you take into consideration that an open world game like Horizon can push the same amount of visuals, then I guess 1886 losses a bit of its charm.
Dem reloads though...
But once you take into consideration that an open world game like Horizon can push the same amount of visuals, then I guess 1886 losses a bit of its charm.
Dem reloads though...
...that...
That wasn't...what I was getting at nor do I believe that was the other guy's intentions either.
When I look at Game Developer Choice Awards, Uncharted 4 won the Best Technology category. Granted technology is more than just graphics, but when you have IGDA with over 12,000 developers worldwide and the majority of them cared enough to vote, voted for Uncharted 4, a PS4 exclusive as having the best technology in a game, what you mentioned in your posts just don't add up.
AC Origins is a beautiful game, and is clearly doing more than these other games in certain areas, but just to give a quick example of how the console versions compare.
Gameplay shots only.
Last edited:
while ALL the games presented at PGW week were incredible, i especially appreciated the collision detection and actual muscular animation done on the last of us trailer - i've been wanting such details to be animated for years now, but never expected to see it with current hardware limitations in mind.
Im less convinced the first one is actually ingame/will actually look like that at release, but spiderman and tlou look great.
Some of you needs lesson in civility because some of you are too feral when it comes to discussions like this.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that all three console makers have gone there own way in the performance department. Microsoft with framerate, Sony with graphical prowess and Nintendo with gameplay.
Plus do remember that The Coalition didn't want to do radical changes to GOW sub set because their didn't want to upset the older fan-base, this means we don't even know what GOW5 will be like.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that all three console makers have gone there own way in the performance department. Microsoft with framerate, Sony with graphical prowess and Nintendo with gameplay.
Plus do remember that The Coalition didn't want to do radical changes to GOW sub set because their didn't want to upset the older fan-base, this means we don't even know what GOW5 will be like.
I think Sony has nudged the studios under them towards third person action adventure games, which are a real sweet spot in terms of graphics and framerate, particularly since 8th gen consoles have such problematically weak CPUs. I am curious about what direction they'll go in a few years time when the PS4 finally can't keep up. Towards the end of the PS3's life, you had games like The Last of Us, which were exceptionally pretty but chugged along at 20fps during busy scenes or even just moderately open sections. TLOU is such a remarkable accomplishment, but when you compare it to Uncharted 3, which ran at a fairly stable 30fps, the problem is apparent.
Different developers prioritize different things, but there is a pretty consistent trend of Sony published action adventure games placing huge weight on character animation and sort of... personal drama, I guess? Not sure what the word is. But it's a different weighted set of graphical design priorities. Which makes it difficulty to objectively say, "This has better graphics than this other game." Instead you have to sort of say, "They're among the best." Is a game with prebaked lighting and an aesthetically pleasing art style graphically "better" than a game with realtime lighting and an art style that is realistic and therefore "bland"? Like, that's a huge factor. Naughty Dog games and Guerilla games are not photorealistic. They are hyper-realistic. It's a stylised realism. This is a huge problem because a lot of people will argue the hyper-realistic game "looks better" than the realistic one that is "bland" and the like.
Case in point:
This is a photograph. This is the zenith of graphical achievement. The fact this would be perceived as "worse graphics than Uncharted 4" is really the underlying problem with photorealism in graphics. I don't there's an easy answer to this problem.
Different developers prioritize different things, but there is a pretty consistent trend of Sony published action adventure games placing huge weight on character animation and sort of... personal drama, I guess? Not sure what the word is. But it's a different weighted set of graphical design priorities. Which makes it difficulty to objectively say, "This has better graphics than this other game." Instead you have to sort of say, "They're among the best." Is a game with prebaked lighting and an aesthetically pleasing art style graphically "better" than a game with realtime lighting and an art style that is realistic and therefore "bland"? Like, that's a huge factor. Naughty Dog games and Guerilla games are not photorealistic. They are hyper-realistic. It's a stylised realism. This is a huge problem because a lot of people will argue the hyper-realistic game "looks better" than the realistic one that is "bland" and the like.
Case in point:
This is a photograph. This is the zenith of graphical achievement. The fact this would be perceived as "worse graphics than Uncharted 4" is really the underlying problem with photorealism in graphics. I don't there's an easy answer to this problem.