-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Graphical Fidelity I Expect This Gen
- Thread starter ResetEraVetVIP
- Start date
Negotiator101
Member
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.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Good god. What a gorgeous looking game. A fucking masterpiece in visual design.
I guess Bethesda is where all the talent in the industry migrated to.
Last edited:
Turk1993
GAFs #1 source for car graphic comparisons
Im not 100% with Starfield since i didn't watch there stream, but can you actually go to those planets without any loading screen. And if yes are they as detailed as those pictures or are they just randomly generated planets with random landscapes and buildings next to the handbuild planets or areas.
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
There’s a loading screen sequence when transitioning from planet to space. You can pick a landing spot anywhere you want. Game will procedurally generate landscape around you and populate it with hand crafted content.
Lethal01
Member
I genuinely think it somewhere between boring and ugly, the talent of this industry is where it usually is.
In Japan.
My B if that post is obvious sarcasm.
Last edited:
Yep, that's a crossgen-looking game alright.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
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.
I look at those shots and i don’t see ray tracing, nanite, fucking 60 fps or any of these buzz words DF throws out. I just see a stunning looking game with cinematography you would see in movies. I am quite frankly shocked that people think that’s an insane take. You might disagree and that’s fine, that’s why we are here to discuss our opinions, but to act like is the craziest take you have seen this week… come on. lol
Last edited:
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
The lighting is very poor in FF16 indeed, it makes everything looks dark and bland.
Last edited:
TheKremlinBossMan
Banned
Are you looking at it with an HRD capable device?
Baked lighting and no SSAO. That game looked dated day one.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
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...
The cafeteria shot looked next as fuck. Now it looks like a PS3 game....
I think this is what Phil Spencer really wants with his cloud gaming push. Everything looks next gen on small phone screens.
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
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.
Lethal01
Member
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.
I get opinions, I love how simple and stylized the textures and character models of Tears of the kingdom are, makes it one of my fav looking games.. But I'm not gonna tell anyone how the texture resolution is super high, shadow resolution is super sharp and it's full of amazing cutscenes.
Startfield is amazing for being a realistic, story driven, no mans sky., but it ain't a looker.
Last edited:
The enviroments are very well designed ....the character graphics though..yikes.
No. Loading screen cutscenes galore.
Negotiator101
Member
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.
arkhamguy123
Member
Nope. Not gonna capitulate here.
Starfield looks awesome and is one of the most visually stunning next gen lookin games I’ve ever seen. Phone screen, big tv screen, movie screen. Don’t care.
Debate with a wall if you disagree I ain’t changing my stance
Starfield looks awesome and is one of the most visually stunning next gen lookin games I’ve ever seen. Phone screen, big tv screen, movie screen. Don’t care.
Debate with a wall if you disagree I ain’t changing my stance
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
I’d say it’s not the most graphically impressive game to date but the art style and art direction is simply breathtaking.
arkhamguy123
Member
Well that’s why I said “one of”
Matrix. Avatar. Fable. Star Wars are the only things keeping it from #1 to me.
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
I think a lot of people will dismiss Starfield in best graphics conversions because of character models / faces. It’s lacking in this department and it makes the game feel inconsistent. I don’t really mind personally.
Oh, I’m getting the art book day 0 for this one. So, so gorgeous.
arkhamguy123
Member
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.
Plus the main characters look fine. They upgraded that one lady from last years showing that had glossy eyes and I even noticed some advanced kind of hair physics on her. Cool stuff.
Last edited:
Lethal01
Member
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.
Last edited:
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.
Even without NPCs the game isn't as impressive as next gen games like Outlaws and Avatar, but one can't deny the scale and world building is probably one of the best in the industry. It's not the pure graphical fidelity that catches the eye, it's the beautiful architecture and mysterious locations that are taken straight from the imagination of beloved sci-fi worlds of the past. Not the best looker, but definitely one of the most striking and eye catching.
One can only imagine what modders will do with this game and how visually advanced they may make it look down the years. The mod support for Bethesda games has always been on the next level. One just has to look at Skyrim and what was done to that game visually to understand where this game could go.
Last edited:
Honey Bunny
Member
Every one of those Starfield shots has a circa 2014 instagram filter on lol.
Lethal01
Member
Well post them them? I am an art first kinda peroson too, I don't care if a game looks date, I just think this style is terrible outside of cool space suit designs
Here you can see plenty of screenshots taken from deep dive: https://photos.google.com/share/AF1...?key=MFB2a3V4RHdrYUZESkpTVEFoVzdRWU5MZk9YMFJB
Anyone who looks at these and doesn't think that some of them are absolutely stunning needs their head checked. Sure there are some aspects of the visuals that are not up to standard like character shading and facial detail and animations, but to ignore the beautiful art direction or how impressive visuals are overall is just absurd . I remember people saying that reveal trailer was CGI and no way will the interior of the ship look like that on release, but now that it does people are saying the game looks bad, lol.
Last edited:
nemiroff
Gold Member
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.
Last edited:
TheKremlinBossMan
Banned
Very interesting. Some things look a lot worse and some look much better.
Starfield has really split up this thread. The most polarizing game graphically alongside FF16. I stand in the middle in regards to its visuals, I think they look very good but not stunning by any means. I think it is this inconsistency within the game that is making it polarizing and splitting people up on it. In some parts it looks absolutely next gen and in others it looks like a PS4.5 game.
I think the game looks better graphically now for the most part. There are a few things which I prefer in the 2022 demo over the new one, like eyes for example which looked a tad more realistic in the 2022 demo, among a few other things. But the game does look better now though which could be thanks to the lighting itself.
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.
I think the game is very competent looking for the scale that it is going for, but it clearly has some issues in regards to character rendering. Not only do these characters look unimpressive, they also look bland and uninspiring (especially the main cast). But other than that the game looks like a proper next gen game for a game of its size and scale. Nobody can deny that last gen NPCs in games of the size and scale of Starfield look far worse than what's in this game. No, the game is not a visual powerhouse, but it is beautiful in a way that art can be.
Last edited:
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.
But given the scale of the game it looks absolutely amazing and this is no small feat by Bethesda honestly.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
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.
GymWolf
Gold Member
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.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Not gonna lie, I prefer some shots in the original trailer. I know lighting has gotten better with better volumetrics, bounce lighting/GI blah blah but i really like the vibrant high contrast look of the 2022 trailer. Made it feel very sci-fi instead of grounded.
At least the characters got an upgrade, they looked pretty rough in the 2022 footage. Is this one of the few games that has managed an upgrade after its initial showing? I think FF16 too. I guess its the extra year of polish maybe? Imagine how good star wars couldve looked if they were given more time to iron out all the issues. I wouldnt be surprised if the poor console performance is tied to the game being cpu bound on consoles too.
Avatar was also delayed by a year by ubisoft of all devs though they are forcing a holiday release so i expect that to come in hot. Still, i expected a bigger downgrade and I wonder if that extra year helped the devs get more out of these consoles. Honestly, revealing this game using the PS5 footage is pretty balsy. Zelda, Starfield and FF16 seem to have been given an extra year just to release a more polished game even though the games were completed last year. I wonder if that is also what happened with Avatar and if thats going to become the norm going foward. Main team finishes the dev and then the support team works with QA for 6-12 months to fix bugs and iron out any issues. The main team can then get a head start on the next game.
P.S Just remembered Insomniac improved the RT reflections quality in Ratchet post reveal as well. IIRC, they doubled the resolution of reflections from 1080p to 4kcb while doing some post launch work for Miles.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Buy a 1440p monitor and downsample it from native 4k. Problem solved. ;p
P.S Actually only half kidding. When I first got my pro, i only had a small 24 inch 1080p tv (the PS 3D TV from back in the day) and ratchet was downsampling a 1440p or 1620p image to 1080p. It honestly looked better in many ways compared to how it looked on my big 4k tv when I upgraded a few weeks later.
TheKremlinBossMan
Banned
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
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
Johnny Concrete
Member
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
Art looks great. Is this UE4?
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.
Even without all the above Starfield is a very competent looking game and one that is well ahead of any game in its genre, scope or ambition. And this comes from someone who has never played Bethesda RPG before.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
I have no idea.
Lethal01
Member
If we are talking about you, liking the aesthetic of the tech then fine, But when people praise this games vistas, they're crazy. They are "alright" at best as is the cinematography used to showcase em. The only noteworthy thing about them is the quanitity of them but honestly I don't even think they will surpass shots you can get in no mans sky artistically.
I think this is one of the better shots and artstically it's no better than an average forspoken sceenshot.
Last edited: