Lighting model the same? Point is Resident Evil 4 looks much better in a cutscene, that screenshot you posted is way too dark as well.
In Game is the same model.
Good god. What a gorgeous looking game. A fucking masterpiece in visual design.
Yep, that's a crossgen-looking game alright.
lol I'm not kidding my man. I am not sure why you all think I'm saying something totally outrageous. This is the second time I've received this kind of reaction. The first was when i said avatar looked better than horizon and someone in the other thread thought i was taking the piss.
The lighting is very poor in FF16 indeed, it makes everything looks dark and bland.
Are you looking at it with an HRD capable device?
In my defense, I was watching those screenshots on my 6inch iPhone 14 OLED screen this morning, and now, blown up on my 65 inch tv, they dont look too hot lmao.Jesus we really fucking lost slimy uh?!
Next he's gonna praise some switch game...
Don't agree there but yeah it's lighting in-game is very inconsistent also it's SSR implementation is showing its age (especially since RT reflections have become more popular). Also pop-in can occur but is only occasionally.
It really is though, "cinematography you would see in movies", star thing is genuinely one of the ugliest AAA games I've seen during not E3.
The enviroments are very well designed ....the character graphics though..yikes.
No. Loading screen cutscenes galore.
It has some of the most incredible vistas I've ever seen in a game. Has absolutely beautiful lighting and the art design of the spaceships is brilliant.
Well that's why I said "one of"
Yeah I'm with you I give 0 fucks some random NPC doesn't look like Aloy from horizon PS5. Everything else just about is so top notch I can't even fathom getting hung up on that.
That's just one screenshot, we can post plenty here that are stunning. Personally I like the style they are going for, it's that 70s/80s retro future look. While Starfield is technologically dated when it comes to NPCs, those NPCs still look better than NPCs in last gen open world games. Yes, Starfield is not open world, but it's on much bigger scale than those games.But none of them were shown in shiny snakes right? Right now I'm going of what he posted and it's just super meh.
From an artstyle point of view this just look absolutely mediocre to me.
Obviously this is subjective and talking about it will go nowhere.
But I just can't stop myself from going "HUH" when I hear praise for it.
Here you can see plenty of screenshots taken from deep dive: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=MFB2a3V4RHdrYUZESkpTVEFoVzdRWU5MZk9YMFJB
Yeah, that's definitely a wow from me. If you average those images in good faith (too much to ask?) there's no doubt it's one of the best looking games, especially in its genre, I've seen. Good art, atmosphere and contemporary vfx.
As someone who used the word "stunning", let me clarify what I meant. I personally don't think on pure graphical fidelity alone Starfield is a powerhouse. I think what makes the visuals stand out is the beautiful retro sci-fi art direction along with vistas that are indeed stunning. The combination of these things make the game look brethtaking at certain points. It reminds a lot of the first times Effect, it was by no means a visual powerhouse (the second one was), but the art direction, uniqueness and beautiful locations just made the game stand out in a sea of very bland looking games at the time.
Honestly, this is exactly how I feel about Starfield. Everything you mentioned that makes Starfield unique is what I thought made it unique, it's this uniqueness that I alluded to as the next-gen part of Starfield and it is the ugly ass characters that I alluded to as the PS4.5 part of it.
You have a 4080. You will run this at native 4k 60 fps.
Yeah, I mentioned cinematography and it is a huge part of why the game looks stunning. Art direction goes a long way towards making video games look stunning while masking some of its shortcomings. I remember bringing up cinematography and art direction when talking about HZD. The game was the first open world game that look stunning no matter where you were. It felt like the world was handcrafted and lit to look good in any weather or lighting condition. RDR2 topped it the next year with even more consistent cinematography but lately its become very common to see games either look too gamey or be very inconsistent like star wars and HFW.
And it still not gonna look as pristine as those gifs, you know it, i know it.You have a 4080. You will run this at native 4k 60 fps.
And if they use FSR on consoles, 1296p should produce a clean image as long as they dont fuck up the implementation like Capcom did with RE4.
Yeah, I mentioned cinematography and it is a huge part of why the game looks stunning. Art direction goes a long way towards making video games look stunning while masking some of its shortcomings. I remember bringing up cinematography and art direction when talking about HZD. The game was the first open world game that look stunning no matter where you were. It felt like the world was handcrafted and lit to look good in any weather or lighting condition. RDR2 topped it the next year with even more consistent cinematography but lately its become very common to see games either look too gamey or be very inconsistent like star wars and HFW.
HFW looks better in technical terms compared to HZD like way better lighting, character models, foliage density, way more detailed cities and villages, but man HZD was just a stunning piece of art. Starfield is the first game after RDR2 and HZD that gives me the same feeling of ok, im watching a hollywood movie set.
Buy a 1440p monitor and downsample it from native 4k. Problem solved. ;p
Maybe it's because i'm overly hyped for the game but it doesn't looks like the worst graphic ever for an AA from a small studio.
If slimy can get his panties wet for starfield i can do the same for this one
Maybe it's because i'm overly hyped for the game but it doesn't looks like the worst graphic ever for an AA from a small studio.
If slimy can get his panties wet for starfield i can do the same for this one
Agreed. Art direction is extremely important, it's what makes games stand out and age better. It's the reason why Nintendo games age so well and the reason why many Switch games get lauded for their visuals even though they're all technically from PS3 era. Cinematography is also very important as you mentioned, it's why so many of Starfield shots are so eye catching. Obviously raw fidelity is important as some here love to point out when it comes to Starfield, but it's ain't the single factor that defines graphics. A prime example of this in recent time is a game like Lies of P, a game that's technically way ahead of Bloodborne, but nobody here is gonna deny that Bloodborne is a much more beautiful game visually overall.
I have no idea.
