No I am talking about the new games. To see if they raise the bar.
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.
No I am talking about the new games. To see if they raise the bar.
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.You have a odd take on people claiming "this game has the best graphics because it's exclusive!
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.
No, no it does not. I get the feeling this is less about graphical prowess and more about that particular style of hyper-realistic art design that is quite common with Sony-owned studios.
This is untrue. Many of the best looking games on PS4 are multiplatform. And by extension of this, many of the best looking games on PC and the Xbox One X are multiplatform. Again, Assassin's Creed: Origins.
AC: Origins is one of the best looking PS4 games. It has incredible graphics, and an open world scope that few developers match. If it were a PS4 exclusive, it would be gushed over. Platform exclusivity has a HUGE impact on how games are discussed.
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.Have you played Uncharted 4? After every cutscene, the game still maintains the detail as it was in the cutscene. not transitions, just straight to the playable segment.
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.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.
No it doesn;t which makes his entire post, pointless.Is aco really better looking than horizon? Does it look better than it did at e3?
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.
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.
He's trolling with posts like that at this point.If only Sony first party games looked great outside of cut-scenes.
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!"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.
Nobody is saying they look bad out of cutscenesIf only Sony first party games looked great outside of cut-scenes.
GTS is garbage?? lolNeither From Software, and Bloodborne was a pain in the eye due to the framepacing and the 30 fps limitation. GT Sport is garbage. I love Uncharted, but gameplay wise is the same game all over again with better animations, but the core gameplay is pretty much the same since 2007.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
People are using imgur, which has currently blocked hotlinking here. It's being worked out.
after its delay I'm sure it will look better.Should be taking the crown for one of the worst looking games of this gen, so there is that.
I'll never understand how or why Sony is able to pull off what they do. Literally every game they make now is just oozing with atmosphere.. and Microsoft can't even make one.. not even one game that is even close. I'm a huge Xbox fan too. I just don't get how Sony does it
Is aco really better looking than horizon? Does it look better than it did at e3?
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
LOL.
"Cinematic adventure " or "Interactive Movie" is better imho.
What makes Detroit any less of a game than something like Monkey Island
...that...
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.
No, no it does not. I get the feeling this is less about graphical prowess and more about that particular style of hyper-realistic art design that is quite common with Sony-owned studios.
This is untrue. Many of the best looking games on PS4 are multiplatform. And by extension of this, many of the best looking games on PC and the Xbox One X are multiplatform. Again, Assassin's Creed: Origins.
AC: Origins is one of the best looking PS4 games. It has incredible graphics, and an open world scope that few developers match. If it were a PS4 exclusive, it would be gushed over. Platform exclusivity has a HUGE impact on how games are discussed.