Lots to unpack here. Ratchet is indeed a huge leap over the 2016 ratchet, but so is HFW over the 2017 HZD despite being last gen. Does that make HFW next gen? Go and play HFW on PS4, it looks virtually identical save for resolution, foliage draw distance and maybe hero lighting. the leap came from GG reducing the resolution of the base PS4 game to 900p getting 44% of the GPU back improving their lighting, water quality and character models over there the previous game. If we apply the same logic to ratchet, it becomes obvious that Ratchet could be done on the PS4 at a reduced resolution with some effects paired back just like HFW.
I think the biggest mistake Sony devs made last gen was sticking with their stupid 1080p target. That limited that kind of mid to late gen leap we used to see in the PS2 and PS3 era where games like Uncharted 2, Gear 2 and AC2 looked vastly better than their original entries. I remember playing RDR2 on my brothers 65 inch tv running on an x1s and I was pretty surprised by the IQ. I mean playing RDR2 at native 4k on my X1x was practically a religious experience, but 900p didnt look that bad. The game still retained its phenomenal graphics. I think for GOW Ragnorak, they shouldve dropped the resolution to 900p and at least tried to upgrade the visuals.
Lastly, Sony studios have been shown up by Ubisoft devs, Microsoft Devs and even SE this past E3. I am not sure why you think they are leagues ahead. That may have been true at the start of the gen with DS and Ratchet leagues ahead of other games, but if this E3 is any indication, it's the sony devs who are lagging way behind.
1. I'd say HBS and to some extent HFW are clearly next gen games, yes. Burning Shores in particular is way way way ahead of anything last gen. I simply don't believe your claim that HFW on PS4 looks close to that fidelity. On a a youtube video on a phone, then yeah, it'll be a good resemblance, but actually playing it on a great big 4k tv (which is after all an essential part of the experience), I'd bet that's a massive difference. I mean, it's 30fps for a start, so that's a huge downgrade right away, before we even start on the quality of graphics one can capture in a screenshot. By your logic, Doom 2016 is a PS3 game because it runs on a Switch. Frankly, it's bullshit.
2. No comment on the second para except to say that mistakes imo is a strange thing to focus on when assessing Sony first party graphical output of last gen, considering they produced about 95% of the best looking games of that generation. But ok, it's an opinion I guess.
3. Ubisoft showed that Star Wars game that does indeed look like the best graphics yet (imo) but then who knows how it'll actually run on consoles. I'm guessing it'll be 720p-ish upscaled if you want to play at 60fps. That doesn't look great at all. So who knows what it'll actually look like on a big TV. Maybe it'll be nice and sharp, but I doubt it. I thought the Avatar game disappointed, personally. IMO overall fidelity was worse than Ratchet and Burning Shores. Seemed to be running at 1440p-ish at 30fps from some analysis I saw, but that mentioned the probability that that was achieved via reconstruction. Let's say they're doing a base of 1080p at 30, then. That's 1/4 of the pixels of Burning Shores, for a game that IMO looks worse anyway. That's what I mean by Sony's ascendancy. It's not the graphics per se. It's the overall performance they're gleaning compared to other devs.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with Microsoft? Fable looked decent, but only tiny bits of gameplay. Certainly nothing better than Ratchet, say. Forza? Isn't that the game you were berating for ages for its wasteful 4k visuals?
I honestly can't remember anything else being particularly impressive...?
