LOL, I know. He seems to be downplaying PS4 exclusives (visually) quite a lot from what I observed. And as of now, he hasn't responded to my pic which debunks his quarter res DoF claim.
It definitely still has a very post-processed, blurred look to it overall, even in motion. Its not a very crisp or sharp looking game. And that's fine. It certainly executes what its trying to do *very well*, helped by a healthy dose of AA(which if not there, might well ruin a lot of the effect they're going for). But its also a matter of preference whether somebody likes that sort of thing or not.
I'll be surprised if it was removed for a cheaper alternative. 4× MSAA was their target from the start after all. I think it's currently using 4× MSAA with some temporal AA to tackle shimmering but I could be wrong. Regardless, this game has the cleanest IQ of any console game and at times, whatever AA algorithm they're using seems to rival SSAA.
Crossing Eden, right? His tag still makes me chuckle every time I see it. Now all we need is a representative for EA and we're perfect! XD
played through the first couple chapters, I'm just going to ahead and say it.
No one has actually denied that the PP is their due to artistic choice. Why can't you accept it does hinder IQ, though? Which it does. The heavy use of filters will help mask blemishes and screen the pure artwork on show.
Hard to tell with so much post-processing going on.
Not just foreground objects, but bright foreground objects with a large cotnrast difference with their surroundings.
LOL, did you even read his posts? He even went as far as to say The Order 1886's IQ looks only slightly better than a 900p. Unless you concur with that ridiculous statement, that is clearly not true. It doesn't have the upscaling artifacts of 900p games which really causes blurriness in some screens. And to be fair, I never said the game looks very sharp or anything. I would prefer if they toned down the softness of the image but as it stands, the post processing fits very well with the game. And regarding AF, this game clearly has a decent level of AF. Don't try to deny it by saying there's too much blur. That's straight up bullshit.
I think many of us would agree that it looks better than any PC game maxed out in the market right now.
If it was a PC game, we could just look at the buffers before any processing
Damn, that looks really good. I'd like to know if this is POM or tessellation as well.I haven't been keeping up with the discussion in this thread. Has there been any talk about tessellation? I took these yesterday:
Is that what it is? Or is that POM? I have no idea.
Agreed 100%.
I really don't want to start a shouting match here, but if anything those 2 shots seem to illustrate a lack of AF to me :/
More images from the console screenshot thread. These two images show quite a good level of AF. They may look a tad bit too blurry but you can clearly see the AF
Wow, hyperbole, much? The second one does show a relatively low level of AF, somewhere below 4× but the first one is much better in AF. Expecting 16× AF for console games right now is a fool's errand, though I wish devs will make 8× the standard at least.
I agree, but it's still better than some games. The first one looks much better in terms of AF though, so I'm guessing dynamic AF like Killzone Shadow Fall?
Agreed. With all the emphasis on IQ, you'd think that RaD would implement at least 8× AF. I guess they decided to use the memory bandwidth on something else.
When you say those examples are of a 'good' level of AF, I don't think its unreasonable to point out that its not that good.
I was comparing it to other console games when calling it "quite a good level". It goes without saying this is much worse than 16× AF
So why jump at somebody and claim 'hyperbole' for pointing it out? :/
I admit, I may have been too harsh with that but the level of AF is still decent IMO. I just don't think "lack of AF" is the right way to describe it. I'd prefer "insufficient AF".
Yeah, pretty much this. I mean, "lack of AF" strikes me as no AF or extremely low level of AF, like 1×. You don't have to agree with me, but "insufficient AF" seems more appropriate to me. And again, my bad for screaming hyperbole.
If more devs start using a 21:9 aspect ratio on consoles that would result in me saving a whole lot of money.
Why? Why is It too much too expect 16x af in games?
Is it too bandwidth intensive for PS4's RAM?
I don't know. Ask devs. I really wish this issue will be resolved soon but for now we can conclude the memory bandwidth of the consoles are insufficient.
I don't think the first is too different from the second. At the distance the other character is standing at (starting even a bit before that really), the ground is basically a blur where there's no geometric detail. As I said, it's hard to tell due to the overall properties of the image. I do agree that it's probably not 0xAF (that is, basic trilinear).
I'd say slightly below 4× AF, which could really be improved but far from horrible.
I don't really want to discuss the definition of something as subjective as "horrible", especially in a technical thread. I've played most games with forced 16xAF since 2003, so for 12 years, and that surely colors my perception.
True, it's like someone who is used to 60FPS and another person who is used to 30FPS commenting on 30FPS. But seriously, it's puzzling that devs haven't found a way around this issue.
