Support NeoGAF

[JimRyanGOAT]

30 years later and Next Gen Just Started

 

[Msamy]

I think snowdrop, decima and ue5 are the only engines right now that gives us next gen graphics in next gen consoles

 

[icerock]

I get what you are saying but starfield will have hundreds of planets to explore. does it matter if landing on them is a cutscene or not?

It's not like any of these games will let you explore entire planets so having them land in an area you can explore is ok. The star wars game will not let you explore entire planets either. its impossible to make games that big.

As for graphics, the character models are dated, but the rest of the graphics look well beyond what we have seen this gen. lighting especially.

Combat will be better than star wars lol come on. Have you played Fallout 4? it will be way deeper than the uncharted combat they are doing here. It's hard for WRPGs to sell combat because its mostly stat and perk based and isnt as flashy as JRPGs. I can promise you starfield's combat will take laps around any First person shooter released this year.

Considering the entire premise of Starfield is exploratory, I'd say being able to fly around the space and land whenever/wherever you want is a big part of the "freedom" they are supposedly striving for. But, that's the point, the sense of freedom is also "fake" in Starfield like that user was originally ranting about. All those 1000 planets by the numbers are good to sell the scope, but vast majority of them will look/feel the same, anybody who played NMS knows this. Procedural generation can only do so much. Also, I never said Outlaws is going to have multiple planets whereby you can freely explore. I just think they did a much better job reigning in the scope and demonstrating different gameplay/mechanics all while pushing actual next-gen visuals and tech.

I agree with you on the lighting but rest of the stuff looks pretty dated. And, for combat, let's agree to disagree. From what they showed, it look pretty light the gunplay, there was no weight attached to it. And less said about melee the better. They improved the AI from last showing but it still looked dumb whereby they are not even shooting you even when you're sprinting right in front of them.

As for the last part, I played xDefiant Beta and that was fantastic. And, CoD despite its flaws always has incredibly satisfying gunplay and combat so strong disagree there too.

You're criticizing Starfield for having 'no interplanterary hopping/landing' and at the same time praising Star Wars where your ship taking off was a cut scene with absolutely no control followed up by a short gameplay section with (most likely) a false sense of freedom where all you do is push your stick upwards towards the clouds until the space level loads.

And I get it, most players won't notice and they'll be mind blown.

My point was sense of freedom is always fake because by definition you are playing a game which has its limit, and it'll break moment you try to do something which it isn't designed for. I like that it was all seamless and gameplay, even though fog/hyper drive was masking the loading.

 

[alloush]

Visuals are actually impressive.

Honestly, this looks surprisingly good. Not mind blowing but much better than I thought and it is still a work in progress. If they somehow manage to make it look even better then fair play to these guys. Knowing Ubisoft though it will most likely be downgraded lol.

Ubisoft restoring my faith in this gen is something I have never imagined would happen. Fair play to them. Let's just hope all these games ship in a complete state with as minimal bugs as possible.

 

[GooseMan69]

Wow, Avatar looks stunning. Finally!

AC looks cross gen as fuck.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I like that it was all seamless and gameplay, even though fog/hyper drive was masking the loading.

The fog was masking the loading and cut-scene was masking the taking off from a fixed landing pad. How is that different from just having a cut scene? How much is that different from Starfield? Why are you even making the comparison knowing how different these two games are in scope? What's the point? Do Star Wars allows you to land anywhere on 1000+ planets and will generate few km² tile of procedurally generated landscape around you with hand crafted content strategically placed for you to explore? I don't think so.

My point was sense of freedom is always fake because by definition you are playing a game which has its limit, and it'll break moment you try to do something which it isn't designed for.

Yes! And the very best games are the ones that try their hardest to fool the player for as long as possible that there are no limits. Like the new Zelda that you've mentioned.

 

[SlimySnake]

I agree with you on the lighting but rest of the stuff looks pretty dated. And, for combat, let's agree to disagree. From what they showed, it look pretty light the gunplay, there was no weight attached to it. And less said about melee the better. They improved the AI from last showing but it still looked dumb whereby they are not even shooting you even when you're sprinting right in front of them.

As for the last part, I played xDefiant Beta and that was fantastic. And, CoD despite its flaws always has incredibly satisfying gunplay and combat so strong disagree there too.

I have always found CoD and other console shooters to be lacking in SP. Yes, CoD has legendary mechanics but i cant tell you a single decent COD campaign i played because that same legendary mp combat simply doesnt translate into good SP combat.

I loved Fallout 4's deep combat system. It was more than point and shoot. It was more than just maxing out your DPS which is what Destiny and other shooters eventually turn into. There was strategy there and i fucking loved making my own weapons. Same with skyrim. Did it have legendary combat? not even close. basic fucking hack and slash but the RPG mechanics that let you play as any class give it depth you simply dont see in other games. I think that kind of stuff is very hard to sell in trailers. TLOU2's combat is easier to sell because of its flashy mechanics but I have always had just as much playing WRPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. Even Andromeda.

I am not saying you're wrong btw. Its possible that starfield's combat ends being as boring as it looks, but I have faith that bethesda wont make something as janky and boring as No Mans Sky.

What did you think of Avatar btw? It also has gorgeous lighting, incredible next gen foliage that looks even better than horizon forbidden west, but some very rough looking character models even in cutscenes.

 

[UnNamed]

I wasn't expecting to see so many titles that finally look nextgen from Ubisoft.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I loved Fallout 4's deep combat system. It was more than point and shoot. It was more than just maxing out your DPS which is what Destiny and other shooters eventually turn into. There was strategy there and i fucking loved making my own weapons. Same with skyrim. Did it have legendary combat? not even close. basic fucking hack and slash but the RPG mechanics that let you play as any class give it depth you simply dont see in other games. I think that kind of stuff is very hard to sell in trailers. TLOU2's combat is easier to sell because of its flashy mechanics but I have always had just as much playing WRPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. Even Andromeda.

Word. Same here. I swear, people who hate on Fallout 4 combat never got passed the starting Pipe Pistol. There's so much depth to it.

 

[rofif]

 

[CGNoire]

Everything is "Impressive" to DF now a days.

 

[icerock]

The fog was masking the loading and cut-scene was masking the taking off from a fixed landing pad. How is that different from just having a cut scene? How much is that different from Starfield? Why are you even making the comparison knowing how different these two games are in scope? What's the point? Do Star Wars allows you to land anywhere on 1000+ planets and will generate few km² tile of procedurally generated landscape around you with hand crafted content strategically placed for you to explore? I don't think so.



Yes! And the very best games are the ones that try their hardest to fool the player for as long as possible that there are no limits. Like the new Zelda that you've mentioned.

You are shifting the goalposts, your original post was ranting about what I found impressive in Outlaws. I laid out every single bit, but you latched onto flight traversal. And, yes it is doing it a lot better because it is fooling the player it is all gameplay, even though it's masking a load screen. Insomniac did it in Ratchet with their portals. That's smart dev-design.

And, I have already told you why I think scope of Starfield with it's 1000000 planets means little. We've already seen and played these procedurally generated games. I want to see a step up in regards to their tech, tighter combat, better animations and models, better AI. Better visuals. You can't repeat "scope" ad-nauseam and say it's next-gen. No, it doesn't work like that.

I have always found CoD and other console shooters to be lacking in SP. Yes, CoD has legendary mechanics but i cant tell you a single decent COD campaign i played because that same legendary mp combat simply doesnt translate into good SP combat.

I loved Fallout 4's deep combat system. It was more than point and shoot. It was more than just maxing out your DPS which is what Destiny and other shooters eventually turn into. There was strategy there and i fucking loved making my own weapons. Same with skyrim. Did it have legendary combat? not even close. basic fucking hack and slash but the RPG mechanics that let you play as any class give it depth you simply dont see in other games. I think that kind of stuff is very hard to sell in trailers. TLOU2's combat is easier to sell because of its flashy mechanics but I have always had just as much playing WRPGs like Fallout and Mass Effect. Even Andromeda.

I am not saying you're wrong btw. Its possible that starfield's combat ends being as boring as it looks, but I have faith that bethesda wont make something as janky and boring as No Mans Sky.

What did you think of Avatar btw? It also has gorgeous lighting, incredible next gen foliage that looks even better than horizon forbidden west, but some very rough looking character models even in cutscenes.

CoD is a MP experience first and foremost, besides combat and mechanics don't change in SP either. The hit-reg, the movement, the weight, the gunplay with different attachments, it's all there. And, it's kinda funny you are talking about maxing and making your own weapons in Fallout 4 when CoD introduced gunsmith 4 years ago allowing you to choose between 100s of attachments on each gun, whereby you can even tune them to your liking, as if you want it to ADS faster/recoil less/make it more mobile. You must take a look because they are doing a lot in there. CoD has transformed the customization element with gunsmith so much so that long time CoD players are screaming less is more, give us old attachments back.

Avatar looks very good, easily the 2nd best showing after Outlaws and Snowdrop is putting in the work. Release date of December has me little nervous, because normally big games don't release there but I am hopeful. I wanted to see next-gen tech and visuals and both Microsoft and Ubi delivered, less said about Sony the better. I don't want to go on another rant lol.

 

[CGNoire]

This is the same people that test 10 hours of a 100 hours game to tell you the average framerate.

Digital clowndry.

Looking at the DF Direct Thumnails they post on Youtube its obvious DF stands for "Derp Face".

 

[Neo_game]

What's impressive about them?

What is not impressive about it ?

Mirage seems to use the improved baked GI that AC Unity had. I am glad they went with it.

 

[analog_future]

I really don't understand the fuss over Avatar.

It looks good but I don't think it looks as good as HFW (or even as good as Starfield outside of character models).

And none of them look as good as what was shown of Fable.

 

[SlimySnake]

You are shifting the goalposts, your original post was ranting about what I found impressive in Outlaws. I laid out every single bit, but you latched onto flight traversal. And, yes it is doing it a lot better because it is fooling the player it is all gameplay, even though it's masking a load screen. Insomniac did it in Ratchet with their portals. That's smart dev-design.

And, I have already told you why I think scope of Starfield with it's 1000000 planets means little. We've already seen and played these procedurally generated games. I want to see a step up in regards to their tech, tighter combat, better animations and models, better AI. Better visuals. You can't repeat "scope" ad-nauseam and say it's next-gen. No, it doesn't work like that.



CoD is a MP experience first and foremost, besides combat and mechanics don't change in SP either. The hit-reg, the movement, the weight, the gunplay with different attachments, it's all there. And, it's kinda funny you are talking about maxing and making your own weapons in Fallout 4 when CoD introduced gunsmith 4 years ago allowing you to choose between 100s of attachments on each gun, whereby you can even tune them to your liking, as if you want it to ADS faster/recoil less/make it more mobile. You must take a look because they are doing a lot in there. CoD has transformed the customization element with gunsmith so much so that long time CoD players are screaming less is more, give us old attachments back.

Avatar looks very good, easily the 2nd best showing after Outlaws and Snowdrop is putting in the work. Release date of December has me little nervous, because normally big games don't release there but I am hopeful. I wanted to see next-gen tech and visuals and both Microsoft and Ubi delivered, less said about Sony the better. I don't want to go on another rant lol.

Yeah, i love the new customization stuff. I skipped a couple of cods after MW1 which introduced the new customization stuff, and was shocked to see just how far they have taken it when i picked up vanguard for cheap late last year. its basically an RPG at this point. i made some hilariously broken guns.

I still think that kind of RPG stuff is missing from their SP modes which are still pretty much simple shoot'em ups. I had way more fun with fallout 4 and mass effect andromeda than any cod campaign. even infinite warfare which was actually kinda decent for a cod campaign.

 

[SlimySnake]

Please never stop stanning for Forspoken. I beg of you.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Can't believe freakin Ubisoft took the crown this summer. I mean, seriously? I just wish they hit EA up and ask them to borrow their hair physics engine/technique they have implemented in FIFA

But its Ubi, this will be toned down a lot for consoles. Bet its running on a 4090 in this video.

 

[ChiefDada]

I really don't understand the fuss over Avatar.

It looks good but I don't think it looks as good as HFW (or even as good as Starfield outside of character models).

And none of them look as good as what was shown of Fable.

I would place it above HFW but below Burning Shores based on what they showed today.

 

[CGNoire]

I can't find the interview rn but they've stated that (for cutscenes) they are using a combination of (in-engine) CG for the background with real time rendering for objects/characters in the foreground. Quite honestly I don't even mind because its incredibly difficult to tell, and the results speak for themselves (in terms of the scope)

Well I certainly care since the enviroments and the scale of them is the only thing I thinks Impressive. If true that sucks.

 

[SlimySnake]

Can't believe freakin Ubisoft took the crown this summer. I mean, seriously? I just wish they hit EA up and ask them to borrow their hair physics engine/technique they have implemented in FIFA

Fifa Hair Tech
+
Horizon FW Character Models
+
Starfield Lighting
+
Avatar Foliage
+
Matrix Asset Quality
+
rofif's undying love for Forposken
=
Greatest Visual Masterpiece ever made.

 

[ChiefDada]

The demo was by no means perfect, but it achieves far too much to be lazily described as a last gen looking game. Performance needs work.

 

[icerock]

Yeah, i love the new customization stuff. I skipped a couple of cods after MW1 which introduced the new customization stuff, and was shocked to see just how far they have taken it when i picked up vanguard for cheap late last year. its basically an RPG at this point. i made some hilariously broken guns.

I still think that kind of RPG stuff is missing from their SP modes which are still pretty much simple shoot'em ups. I had way more fun with fallout 4 and mass effect andromeda than any cod campaign. even infinite warfare which was actually kinda decent for a cod campaign.

Their campaigns are too short to allow you to upgrade and customize stuff, I mean you don't even use 90% of weapons they have in the game in SP. It is primarily built for MP.

I can recommend both MW19 and MW22 campaigns, they are excellent with a good variety of missions.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

Fifa Hair Tech
+
Horizon FW Character Models
+
Starfield Lighting
+
Avatar Foliage
+
Matrix Asset Quality
+
rofif's undying love for Forposken
=
Greatest Visual Masterpiece ever made.

And we probably would need a

PlayStation 5
+
Xbox Series X
+
Game PC
+
Another Game PC
+
20 Nintendo Switches

To run it

 

[SlimySnake]

And we probably would need a

PlayStation 5
+
Xbox Series X
+
Game PC
+
Another Game PC
+
20 Nintendo Switches

To run it

Touche.

Though, As much as I shit on ND and other sony studios, i think they can do it. Foliage, character models (at least in cutscenes), lighting are stunning in TLOU2 a game running on 1.8 Ghz console. Sadly, probably not till 2027.

 

[OCASM]

The protagonist's hair in Star Wars Outlaws was running at half rate during gameplay. Jarring. Hope they fix it.

Well Avatar didnt get downgraded. Holy fucking shit.

Mind blowing.

EDIT: This is proof that if devs fucking tried and had any ambition, anything is possible. The foliage rendering is insane but that lighting omg. The final scene with the burning ship setpiece looks almost like the movie.

OK they are about to show gameplay. moment of truth. nvm captured on PS5. looks just as good. im done. i can die happy.

They've downgraded shadows from ray tracing to shadow mapping.

The demo was by no means perfect, but it achieves far too much to be lazily described as a last gen looking game. Performance needs work.

That looks cross-gen.

 

[Turk1993]

Some official high res screenshots

 

[ChiefDada]

Some official high res screenshots

What's going on with these screenshots that do a crap job of conveying fidelity? Had I not watched the Ubisoft overview, I wouldn't be impressed. Is there a technical reason behind this?

That looks cross-gen.

See above.

I just finished the demo. The screenshots I took are from sections of the demo that do not look cross-gen at all.

 

[SlimySnake]

They've downgraded shadows from ray tracing to shadow mapping.

Good. No reason for consoles to be wasting precious GPU on getting accurate shadows and lighting. PC gamers can have this like they do for Cyberpunk, Metro and even PS5 PC Ports like Returnal Spiderman and Ratchet. I think Star Wars missed a trick by using RT exclusively on consoles. It looks fine in non RT mode on PC.

Hell, its kinda insane to see RTGI being exclusive to PC version of Forza, and likely for Starfield as well. Especially after the whole RDNA 2.0 fiasco where XSX's real power differential would show up as next gen games come out. Turns out its just as weak or just as powerful as the PS5. Neither is able to do all these RT effects at once.

Starfield recommends a 2080 as a Recommended Settings card along with a 6800xt which is supposed to be 80% more powerful but obviously in standard rasterized games and im wondering if PC version of starfield will have RTGI which will obviously run worse on AMD GPUs. Todd howard said only realtime GI which may or may not mean Ray traced GI.

 

[SlimySnake]

I think snowdrop, decima and ue5 are the only engines right now that gives us next gen graphics in next gen consoles

Is Fable running on UE5 because it looks insane and has a very CG feel to it. Something even UE5 games cant capture. The foliage forest sections in the gif above absolutely insane.

I think it comes down to devs. Engines are important but anyone can do next gen graphics. UE5 will just let lazy devs get a headstart but if you're willing to put in the effort, you can make some next gen looking games on any engine. I keep posting those old UE4 demos to show that UE4 is capable of some stunning graphics. I think the devs just dont want to spend too much time on graphics anymore. FF7-2, Star Wars, and Mortal Kombat would look the same if they were on UE4 or UE5. Just look at Tekken. its on UE5 and doesnt seem to be using Lumens or Nanite.

Capcom is up next and as good as the RE engine was last gen, it is obvious that they need to improve their lighting and asset quality. Lets see if they show something next gen tonight.

P.S I know im shitting on MK1, but it does look very good. especially when compared to SF6 and Tekken 8. The background detail is rather impressive. Just lacking that wow factor.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Sorry to be a slow poke, but a few pages back, people were saying (paraphrasing) that Bethesda has always been a gen or two behind the curve on graphics.

Am I crazy? Fallout 3/Skyrim/and even Fallout 4 were real lookers when they came out. Open worlds that looked as good as much smaller games. I STILL think some new games dont look as good as Fallout 4, and it's 8 years old now.

Bethesda animation has always been stiff and wrong, but I think their lighting and textures really shine. Why do people think they've been lackluster?

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

Looking at the DF Direct Thumnails they post on Youtube its obvious DF stands for "Derp Face".

The sad thing is they were mocking this and saying they didn’t need to stoop that law because of Patreon…

 

[H . R . 2]

After hearing about the Volume-like CG-integrated cutscenes and watching the trailer more closely this time, and given Ubisoft's history of downgrades, despite being a fan of SnowDrop,... I must say Avatar looks very good BUT not entirely consistent in terms of visuals, not as much as Starfield but in a similar fashion. Ubisoft character models across all their titles seem to have been left largely unimproved, which is a shame.
AC characters looked horrendous but the lack of proper nextgen visuals can be overlooked in light of animation and combat improvements

I believe in Massive and I think they will deliver the goods in terms of visuals if Ubisoft stops interfering with the devs' creative process

I have yet to be impressed
But Fable, Starfield, StarWars, and Avatar all look like very promising and good-looking titles

 

[Msamy]

Is Fable running on UE5 because it looks insane and has a very CG feel to it. Something even UE5 games cant capture. The foliage forest sections in the gif above absolutely insane.

I think it comes down to devs. Engines are important but anyone can do next gen graphics. UE5 will just let lazy devs get a headstart but if you're willing to put in the effort, you can make some next gen looking games on any engine. I keep posting those old UE4 demos to show that UE4 is capable of some stunning graphics. I think the devs just dont want to spend too much time on graphics anymore. FF7-2, Star Wars, and Mortal Kombat would look the same if they were on UE4 or UE5. Just look at Tekken. its on UE5 and doesnt seem to be using Lumens or Nanite.

Capcom is up next and as good as the RE engine was last gen, it is obvious that they need to improve their lighting and asset quality. Lets see if they show something next gen tonight.

P.S I know im shitting on MK1, but it does look very good. especially when compared to SF6 and Tekken 8. The background detail is rather impressive. Just lacking that wow factor.

Yes I forgot about fable , it runs in forza horizon 5 engine and it looks very good, I told ue5 because I think lumen and nanite will make notable difference above ue4 with less requirement specially because lumen is less demanding than normal ue4 rtgi

 

[analog_future]

Some official high res screenshots

Yeah I'm not seeing it.

Looks fine, but there's several games already out or just around the corner that look better.

 

[GooseMan69]

Sorry to be a slow poke, but a few pages back, people were saying (paraphrasing) that Bethesda has always been a gen or two behind the curve on graphics.

Am I crazy? Fallout 3/Skyrim/and even Fallout 4 were real lookers when they came out. Open worlds that looked as good as much smaller games. I STILL think some new games dont look as good as Fallout 4, and it's 8 years old now.

Bethesda animation has always been stiff and wrong, but I think their lighting and textures really shine. Why do people think they've been lackluster?

Lol nah. I distinctly remember Fallout 3 and NV being hideous when they came out. They were never considered to be lookers. They got a pass because they were doing some pretty ambitious stuff.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

That FFXVI performance mode is absolutely abysmal. 30-40fps and it has 1080p IQ…

I’m seriously thinking about building a 5080 equipped PC when it comes out later this year / next year. It will be what 50tflops?

 

[GooseMan69]

Like many people in this thread, I have been thoroughly underwhelmed by this gen with the exception of Horizon. But god, Avatar looks fucking incredible. 3 years in, and it’s one of the only games to make me think “woah, that is straight up not possible on last gen hardware”. Even that Star Wars game looks nice. Props to Ubisoft.

Now we just need Sony to wake the fuck up.

 

[Turk1993]

Is Fable running on UE5 because it looks insane and has a very CG feel to it. Something even UE5 games cant capture. The foliage forest sections in the gif above absolutely insane.

I think it comes down to devs. Engines are important but anyone can do next gen graphics. UE5 will just let lazy devs get a headstart but if you're willing to put in the effort, you can make some next gen looking games on any engine. I keep posting those old UE4 demos to show that UE4 is capable of some stunning graphics. I think the devs just dont want to spend too much time on graphics anymore. FF7-2, Star Wars, and Mortal Kombat would look the same if they were on UE4 or UE5. Just look at Tekken. its on UE5 and doesnt seem to be using Lumens or Nanite.

Capcom is up next and as good as the RE engine was last gen, it is obvious that they need to improve their lighting and asset quality. Lets see if they show something next gen tonight.

P.S I know im shitting on MK1, but it does look very good. especially when compared to SF6 and Tekken 8. The background detail is rather impressive. Just lacking that wow factor.

Yes I forgot about fable , it runs in forza horizon 5 engine and it looks very good, I told ue5 because I think lumen and nanite will make notable difference above ue4 with less requirement specially because lumen is less demanding than normal ue4 rtgi

Its Forzatech, its a beast engine man really underrated. This is how the environments look in FH5 there 2 year old cross gen game.

 

[SlimySnake]

Sorry to be a slow poke, but a few pages back, people were saying (paraphrasing) that Bethesda has always been a gen or two behind the curve on graphics.

Am I crazy? Fallout 3/Skyrim/and even Fallout 4 were real lookers when they came out. Open worlds that looked as good as much smaller games. I STILL think some new games dont look as good as Fallout 4, and it's 8 years old now.

Bethesda animation has always been stiff and wrong, but I think their lighting and textures really shine. Why do people think they've been lackluster?

I think that was just me saying that.

I remember Fallout 3 looking absolutely atrocious next to MGS4. Skyrim looking like shit next to Uncharted 3, RDR1, Batman AC and AC3. By the time GTAV came out in 2013, Skyrim was effectly a gen behind. And Fallout 4 came out the same year Witcher 3 launched, and despite the fact that it had some decent lighting, everything else looked like dogshit. People think character models look bad now, fallout 4 had some of the worst character models ever. MGSV was cross gen, came out the same year and looked better than Fallout 4 while running at a locked 60 fps. Only the lighting was better than what kojima could do in MGSV, and by the time death stranding came out, FO4 wasnt even close to death stranding in terms of fidelity.

It's good to see them take the baby steps they took in improving lighting in FO4 and just take it to the next level in Starfield. The asset quality has improved drastically. character models dont look like dogshit anymore even if they look a bit underwhelming.

 

[Lethal01]

Well Avatar didnt get downgraded. Holy fucking shit.

Mind blowing.

EDIT: This is proof that if devs fucking tried and had any ambition, anything is possible. The foliage rendering is insane but that lighting omg. The final scene with the burning ship setpiece looks almost like the movie.

OK they are about to show gameplay. moment of truth. nvm captured on PS5. looks just as good. im done. i can die happy.

there was a huge dowgrade to the foliage, doesn't look anywhere near as good as it did in the reveal

 

[SlimySnake]

That FFXVI performance mode is absolutely abysmal. 30-40fps and it has 1080p IQ…

I’m seriously thinking about building a 5080 equipped PC when it comes out later this year / next year. It will be what 50tflops?

Nvidia tflops are fake tflops now so hard to say. 4090 is 63 tflops but is effectively a 33 tflops card in terms of performance. Both nvidia and AMD are fudging their tflops numbers so hard to compare them to say the RTX 2080 or 5700XT in terms of tflops alone.

But in terms of performance, the 4090 is already 3x more powerful than the 2080 the PS5 trades blows with. Obviously more powerful in RT games. sadly, you will be paying 3x what you are paying for a $500 PS5 to get 3x more performance.

P.S Pretty sure nvidia will release 4080 supers this year or skip it altogether. 5080 is probably a lately 2024 release and will likely be $1,200 offering 4090 performance.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I think that was just me saying that.

I remember Fallout 3 looking absolutely atrocious next to MGS4. Skyrim looking like shit next to Uncharted 3, RDR1, Batman AC and AC3. By the time GTAV came out in 2013, Skyrim was effectly a gen behind. And Fallout 4 came out the same year Witcher 3 launched, and despite the fact that it had some decent lighting, everything else looked like dogshit. People think character models look bad now, fallout 4 had some of the worst character models ever. MGSV was cross gen, came out the same year and looked better than Fallout 4 while running at a locked 60 fps. Only the lighting was better than what kojima could do in MGSV, and by the time death stranding came out, FO4 wasnt even close to death stranding in terms of fidelity.

It's good to see them take the baby steps they took in improving lighting in FO4 and just take it to the next level in Starfield. The asset quality has improved drastically. character models dont look like dogshit anymore even if they look a bit underwhelming.

Thanks for explaining your perspective. Pretty sure you'd mentioned it, and others had agreed, too.

I think I get where my disconnect is now. Most concurrent games looked poor compared to MGS4/5, U3, RDR1, Batman, Witcher's at their time of release...they were top-of-the-line. FO3/Skyrim/FO4 on the other hand fit right in with most other titles being released concurrently, if not a little better than average, imo.

Also, character models aren't something I pay much attention to, and if Bethesda's were poor, I hadn't noticed.

 

[M1987]

Finally a game that looks better than hfw (or on par at the very least)

I could not give less fucks about the avatar movies and i would have liked a third person camera but this looks impressive.

If that's how it looks once released then it blows Forbidden West away,and imo Horizon is the best looking game out there

 

[SlimySnake]

Its Forzatech, its a beast engine man really underrated. This is how the environments look in FH5 there 2 year old cross gen game.

Impressive screenshots but i played this on PC maxed out and didnt look like that lol. Looked very cross gen'ish. I remember being very disappointed.

I am curious to hear your thoughts on Forza 8's footage shown? Honestly i cant tell the upgrades over FH5 because everything shown was replay mode but i hear they wiill have a forza direct soon. i need to see gameplay.

 

[RoadHazard]

Also, character models aren't something I pay much attention to, and if Bethesda's were poor, I hadn't noticed.

 

[SlimySnake]

I think I get where my disconnect is now. Most concurrent games looked poor compared to MGS4/5, U3, RDR1, Batman, Witcher's at their time of release...they were top-of-the-line. FO3/Skyrim/FO4 on the other hand fit right in with most other titles being released concurrently, if not a little better than average, imo.

Right, but I guess what I am trying to say is that Starfield is literally the one setting the bar.... it is top of the line now. Those crazy bastards actually managed to upgrade the graphics from last year. The city especially looks way better with way more detailed and better lighting.

I honestly never expected Bethesda to outdo the best Sony studios and while yes, character rendering horizon is still king, starfield is just in another league with not just visuals but also just the ambition they have in gameplay systems and scope. its insane how generic its made everything else feel and how Fable didnt really outclass it despite looking straight up CG.

there was a huge dowgrade to the foliage, doesn't look anywhere near as good as it did in the reveal

Whats your opinion on this fable gif? apparently its realtime gameplay captured on a series x.

 

[Turk1993]

Impressive screenshots but i played this on PC maxed out and didnt look like that lol. Looked very cross gen'ish. I remember being very disappointed.

I am curious to hear your thoughts on Forza 8's footage shown? Honestly i cant tell the upgrades over FH5 because everything shown was replay mode but i hear they wiill have a forza direct soon. i need to see gameplay.

The shaders and lighting (RTGI) is obviously better compared to FH5 while the environments looks roughly the same. The RT reflections tho are far far better used and reflect everything in and out the car plus other cars and environments. Take note that this game also has to run double the fps and has a far more advanced physics simulation. But where FH5 shines is the free open world of Mexico, which is just more pleasant to look and visually more attractive compared to flat and basic looking race tracks. As someone who plays alot of different racing games on all platforms, i can easily say that FM is really a step up from what we have now especially racing sims. FH5 already looked insane for a cross gen game and FM takes it one step further with all the improvements i mentioned.

 

[blastprocessor]

They weren't kidding about the micro polygon detail basically Snowdrop has something like Nanite. Nice GI as well.

 

[Negotiator101]

Right, but I guess what I am trying to say is that Starfield is literally the one setting the bar.... it is top of the line now. Those crazy bastards actually managed to upgrade the graphics from last year. The city especially looks way better with way more detailed and better lighting.

I honestly never expected Bethesda to outdo the best Sony studios and while yes, character rendering horizon is still king, starfield is just in another league with not just visuals but also just the ambition they have in gameplay systems and scope. its insane how generic its made everything else feel and how Fable didnt really outclass it despite looking straight up CG.


Whats your opinion on this fable gif? apparently its realtime gameplay captured on a series x.

Looks incredible but it's probably a 2025 game so hard to get excited about.