RoadHazard
Gold Member
Even DF recomends fidelity mode, I think I should trust them.
No they didn't. They said it looks the best in that mode, which of course it does, but that for playability performance mode is recommended.
Last edited:
Even DF recomends fidelity mode, I think I should trust them.
I never said R&C doesn't look good. Art direction is a key component in a game looking good.Meh ..why does it have to have "never been done before"? Ratchet looks amazing I think you're just averse to picking a game that has to be 30 fps to look that good lol
The way I judge a game's graphics may not be how other people praise graphics - and that should be OK. Most people here like hyperreal, art directed cinematic feel. I tend to judge based on tech.Okay.... But if we are taking about "graphics king" you would select a (at times) shoddy looking game because it has new technical implementations rather than a game like R&C where every single screenshot is almost flawless? I mean it's hard to take you seriously about the rendering techniques comment when games like CP2077 and Control push new lighting and raytracing techniques so hard and look 1000x better.
Because the OP never gave strict criteria on what constitutes a "graphics king". Taking the question in the context of pushing technology is perfectly valid, as is taking the question as "what looks the best."Meh ..why does it have to have "never been done before"?
Okay. What did you think of the RT and lighting in Control and CP2077?The way I judge a game's graphics may not be how other people praise graphics - and that should be OK. Most people here like hyperreal, art directed cinematic feel. I tend to judge based on tech.
I've never played it, but I have to admit that game is a looker.Guardians looks absolutely unreal on PS5. I played in the native 4k and the ray tracing mode. This screenshot is from the ray tracing mode.
![]()
If anything the screenshots dont do it justice because like Deus Ex Mankind, every scene in the game is full of so much detail it is an eyegasm. The game has no reason looking this good.
It looks like the guy's (not Arthur) fur coat on the PC 1.29 has more fur ; not that it's necessarily better as it hides the snow on his coat more.Not at all, actually.
And visually, any other version is considerably more buggy (in terms of draw distances/pop-in and reflections).
They completely fucked with the game, internally, after launching RDO.
CP2077 lighting failed because it didn't use RT AO properly for all objects such as clothes. Therefore the lighting was flat when objects were in shadow - a clear "last gen" feature.Okay. What did you think of the RT and lighting in Control and CP2077?
While R&C looks great lets not get ahead of ourselves here with any platform talk.
Could probably list a lot of games running on my 5950x 3090 PC ultra settings that look better
Should see that game cranked up on a beefy PC.I'd argue RDR2 on the One X (not the Series X) looks better than ratchet, but that's just me.
R&C has all art but no tech. RT is only on reflections.
Technically it definitely goes to Flight Simulator. The sim is doing a lot of tech under the hood.
Because SlimeGooGoo dont play video games.why?
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'm actually playing right now in Performance RT. Less than 4k in that mode and it looks better than some animated films. Great gameplay, acting and visuals that constantly delight.It;s ratchet, but Guardians and Horizon FW look almost as good so it's not like it is leagues ahead of everything else out there.
Insomniac's decision to focus on native 4k is baffling to say the least. They left a lot of performance on the table leaving themselves with just as much of a pixel budget as cross gen games like Horizon FW and Guardians.
To be honest that's the only to judge a game based on graphics, otherwise is just our opinion and that's it.It's highly subjective and quickly turns into a patetic show of some of the usual suspects, using laughing emojis on every answer that isn't R&C. For me is RDR2 on PC, it's an impressive game graphically on several levels.Because the OP never gave strict criteria on what constitutes a "graphics king". Taking the question in the context of pushing technology is perfectly valid, as is taking the question as "what looks the best."
Had the question been "What game has the best looking visuals?" then sure it's specific.
Question is 1.0 very buggy?
Luigi's mansion is gorgeous.
RDR2 is an amazing looking game and one that should belong up in the list even now.To be honest that's the only to judge a game based on graphics, otherwise is just our opinion and that's it.It's highly subjective and quickly turns into a patetic show of some of the usual suspects, using laughing emojis on every answer that isn't R&C. For me is RDR2 on PC, it's an impressive game graphically on several levels.
The texture work is really good. The extra year paid off there... can't say the same about content so far...Halo Infinite
This game looks fucking UNBELIEVABLE WOW
R&C has all art but no tech
Flight Simulator as it's the only game so far that last gen machines couldn't run, pretty obvious really.
You're not supposed to play this on dial-up internet. You should also find an online tutorial on how to adjust the jpeg quality while your dialed up.
What did you sniff before typing this?Because of these reasons:
"Only real "Lower than Low" are reflections but it's perfectly clear why looking at how absolutely awful they look maxed out on PC.
On Consoles SSR only purpose was to enrich the perfectly placed cubemaps (tons of them, everywere). Their use it's extremely limited, and tastefully added as you never really notice them. In short reflections on Consoles are working as they should, they never draw attention to them, and never appear/disapper all of a sudden because all they do is add (soft) detail to the cubemaps, or give some life to window's glass.
On PC higher reflections settings are a fucking mess. They look super blocky and ugly and glitchy because they were never meant to be seen that way, and simply destroy any kind of immersion whenever they are on screen.
On Consoles v.1.00 uses Ultra Textures, Ultra Geometry, Ultra Draw-Distances, better Ambient Occlusion than any setting on PC, additional light sources, better facial hair and so on.
I'm really not sure what the hell is up with the AO in v.100, but it's by far the best AO i've ever seen that's not RT.
Every version after that just implements a regular kind of SSAO, totally missing the kind of pre-rendered look AO have in version 1.00, and this includes the PC settings.
It's a whole different beast, no way around it, and while there aren't many comparisons using v.1.00 out there unfortunately, an example can be seen on Arthur's face here for example.
![]()
And resolution aside the most notable differences between Pro and Base are these ones:
Pro:
Base:
Of course PC version is still recommended for 60fps (altough not perfect, as some animations are still 30fps), water physics, long shadows, foliage resolution, far object's texture resolution.. but if there was a way to play 1.00 on Series X at 60fps, it would be without a doubt the best version of the game."
And these are base PS4 settings, post downgrade.
I agree, I'm running on a laptop, powerful one though. 5900hx and 3700. Looks amazing on my g9 @ 5120×1440.Cyberpunk 2077. On my RTX3090 and i9 10900k, played at 3440x1440 with every setting maxed, it's still the king. The density and scale of it eclipses everything else; the most immersive gaming world ever created.
I was playing on my fiber internet, though it was wifi, so I don't know if the Xbox has wireless connection issues. I've played several other games streaming on Gamepass without issue.You're not supposed to play this on dial-up internet. You should also find an online tutorial on how to adjust the jpeg quality while your dialed up.
Wait, you're actually serious with this shit..?I was playing on my fiber internet, though it was wifi, so I don't know if the Xbox has wireless connection issues. I've played several other games streaming on Gamepass without issue.
The jpeg is smaller because the NeoGAF image tool didn't like my imgur link so I did a fast scale down, which has worked in the past. Here's a higher res version of what people here call the "graphics king":
![]()
Fight sim
Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users like cashcoat.imgur.com
Serious that the game looks pathetic next to basically every other game in this thread? Yes.Wait, you're actually serious with this shit..?![]()
Thousands of hours on it, not a single crash.RDR2 1.0 was a crashing shit show, nobody would want to play it.
![]()
Digital Foundry never featured RDR2 1.00 in that video.
And careful on relying on them too much:
Reality
There is nothing inaccurate about my sentence in the least. Every Sony bro just hates that I say it without coming up with a claim that's actually grounded in fact. If you think R&C has the tech chops then prove it - and not with cinematic/photomode screenshots. From where I'm sitting, there's nothing tech-savy about the game that makes it look as pretty as it looks.Had I known you were well known around here for these sort of pretentious takes, I wouldn't have bothered with you in the other thread. My bad!
Thousands of hours on it, not a single crash.
You also offer no proof so your statement is not accurate, but opinion based as you claimed earlier. Prove that Insomniac didn't use any new tech. By the way you immediately lash out, it really makes you sound like a troll or warrior instead of a reasonable voice of knowledge I think you are trying to present.There is nothing inaccurate about my sentence in the least. Every Sony bro just hates that I say it without coming up with a claim that's actually grounded in fact. If you think R&C has the tech chops then prove it - and not with cinematic/photomode screenshots. From where I'm sitting, there's nothing tech-savy about the game that makes it look as pretty as it looks.
Whatever.RDR2 never looked as good on console as on pc. There are too many upgrades on pc: night sky lighting is completely absent on consoles, grass draw distance and shadows, water physics, no clouds flicker, reflections etc too many to mention.
Launch was not version 1.00.Launch was a shit show with loads of people not even being able to boot into the game + tons and tons of crashes.
Hell even on neogaf we head threads about this and even benchers from HU and i think even DF had endless crashes. The game was a disaster in its 1.0 state. If you had no issue's you where one of the lucky ones i guess then.
Those pictures he posted don't even come close to do the thing justice.This makes Watch Dogs Legion look like a game from 2 generations ago.
Just amazing work from Epic.
I never had any crashes. Played at launch on x1x. RDR2 is the most polished game ive ever played. Right up there with sony exclusives.Whatever.
Launch was not version 1.00.
Only way to play that version on D1 was to install physically with no internet connection.
I repeat, thousands of hours, not a single crash, ever.
Not even after Save Wizard modding.
If you really want to throw shade at that version, say how nobody would want to play it at 30fps after trying it on a great PC, or how loud it made the old gen consoles sound..
I never had any crashes. Played at launch on x1x. RDR2 is the most polished game ive ever played. Right up there with sony exclusives.