It's a bit uneven but there are plenty of gameplay shots that look stunning. i remember making gifs exclusively of gameplay portions from the e3 walkthroughs because people in E3 thread kept saying everything was fake or cutscene footage.
Look at the light bounce off of buildings and volumetrics. This isnt just fake fog a la horizon forbidden west. You can compare the dusk lighting with the lighting in the spiderman 2 trailer and see just how much better it looks. both have that orange hue but spiderman 2 looks like UE3 quality dusk lighting while this looks straight up CG.
How soThis next gif is from the animated movie. notice how it resembles the lighting in Project mugen. .
They feel more 3d due to being sharp and clear due to their simple shapes and color which don't require as detailed textures as the more realistic, more high frequency detailed look the Spiderman 2 is going for. This also helps with the lighting as it's easier to see the effect of the bounced lighting when their isn't a ton of variation in the base texture.
The NPCs have more basic textures and shaders than that of Spiderman
It’s refreshing to see someone caring about animations and physics besides myself. Animations/physics are a huge pet peeve of mine and have been so for a long ass while.
Yeah I agree. Looks insane. I had to do a double take if it's not live action
This bit right here shows one of the most impressive character models i've ever seen. The way the shadowing is cast in the eye pockets, along the forehead wrinkle, and subtly around the folds at the sides of the nose, conveys exactly how light behaves in real life when the source is directly above the head. Not to mention how details like the eyelashes react to the light. I genuinely thought this was the live action stuff the game also has mixed into the gameplay when I first watched it.
On a technical level the graphics are about the same as spiderman if not a worse. definitely not more "next gen"
In terms of how it actually looks, Yeah, fantastic, been saying it for decades, stylized art just looks better and is more sensible for hardware with limits.
Double fuck avatar though. looks okay graphically, nowhere near photorealistic, with extremely weak visuals.
I'll still admit the opening shot of the reveal was pretty nice though.
Seems to be by Netease, one of the biggest names in the buisiness.
people are very easily fooled by lots of foliage
Because they can do better if they don’t chase native 4k. I don’t know why i get so much push back on this. It is literally common sense. A gpu can be used to render more pixels or more effects. Avatar is pushing rt gi, rt shadows, rt reflections, way more foliage and a way higher draw distance By targeting 1440p internal resolution.
And most stuff in Sony games are cleverly render in loading screen
Bruh that game looks like your ultimate mix up from your fav games . It took some inspiration from Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, Forspoken, Witcher and Ghost Of Tsushima. Game looks really fun tho.
Foliage and RTGI, RT Reflections, RT Shadows, Draw Distance, Faster Flying, denser environments, way more realistic wildlife simulation. Most people are not blind.
It’s funny coming from a guy who worshipped that fugly looking game called Forspoken!
Master putting the quote on top this time around???
These are screenshots rofif himself posted in various threads to showcase how good it looks.
I think targeting 60 fps on 10 tflops base consoles is a big mistake. You can see this from the latest games dropping to 600p-720p and still struggling to hold 60 fps. so why bother?
Is it now, lets see
I didn't say this
didn't say that either.
Yeah. I may be wrong, but I think devs reached the limit of human artists' ability in animation. We need some technical solution (AI or whatever) to supplement human animators' work. Like for example, photogrammetry for 3D artists.
Yes, AI is the solution going forward and obviously insane amount of hardware prowess in my opinion.
Nah, first person shooters games should be 60
Should Avatar be 60?
I don't know or care about the gameplay, so I dunno, but if a game is asking you for constant, fast paced, precise aiming then it's pretty suited to being 60 rather than 30.
I guess the point is that 30 fps is not a mendatory requirement for first person games. Destiny was the 2nd most popular FPS last gen and it was 60 fps until the next gen versions came out. Im playing Division right now, another 30 fps shooter. KZ, Gears, Horizon, Far Cry, Uncharted were all 30 fps shooters. I just dont buy this whole every shooter must be 60 fps especially when there is no multiplayer component. halo was 30 fps until last gen and everyone fucking hates it now. 60 fps didnt save that game.
lol They are literally making this game in a warzone. If someone gets a pass for downgrades, it’s the devs who had to go and fight Russians in real life.Absolute LMAO at stalker 2
Mind you, the first screenshot is the worst looking place in that game and that's the point.These are screenshots rofif himself posted in various threads to showcase how good it looks.
Compared to this, Avatar looks like a PS9 game.
I think targeting 60 fps on 10 tflops base consoles is a big mistake. You can see this from the latest games dropping to 600p-720p and still struggling to hold 60 fps. so why bother?
Focus on 30 fps and optimize around that. Then for mid gen consoles you can always make a 60 fps mode since you will have double the gpu power. Or keep 60 fps on powerful PCs like avatar is doing.
I also agree that I dont particularly care what tech is being used as long as the results are great. Honestly before FF16, i couldnt care less about RT shadows because they didnt make deathloop, cod cold war, and shadow of tomb raider look next gen. However, i can see a clear upgrade in their lighting engine here compared to say RDR2, Horizon FW, and their older division games which looked stunning but now look a gen behind.
Then you are not a real graphics whore. Because 30fps objectively look better.
"In my opinion, 30fps games run at a higher framerate than 60fps games"
Ratchet and HBS are essentially last gen titles. Ratchet's portal sections are the only next gen thing about it. Most levels, especially the open world levels look rather last gen and so does Horizon FW and BS. It's easier to pull off 60 fps with those visuals and more importantly with that last gen tech that was designed to run on a 1.8 tflops gpu and jaguar CPU. You can see how well Ratchet runs on steamdeck vs other next gen games. they just arent pushing that gpu hard enough with next gen effects and features.
Ratchet and HBS are essentially last gen titles. Ratchet's portal sections are the only next gen thing about it. Most levels, especially the open world levels look rather last gen and so does Horizon FW and BS. It's easier to pull off 60 fps with those visuals and more importantly with that last gen tech that was designed to run on a 1.8 tflops gpu and jaguar CPU. You can see how well Ratchet runs on steamdeck vs other next gen games. they just arent pushing that gpu hard enough with next gen effects and features.
As games become more complex and start to to push more visuals and more cpu heavy effects, it will become harder and harder to stick with those 30 fps targets. we've seen it time and time again this year.
I highly doubt that people would be ok with getting this for the rest of this gen as long as they get 60 fps. Ratchet has what is essentially PS2 level linear levels that look excellent but dont really do much. HBS has awful pop-in and the same lighting, draw distance and pop-in issues that plagued the base game. As good as both games can look at times, they are not what I would consider next gen and we should definitely aim to top them. even if it comes at the expense of 60 fps. i think 40 fps is a good compromise and that should be the performance mode thats included in these games as an option, not 60 fps.
I feel like i am taking crazy pills with some of you guys. Not being impressed by avatar is one thing, saying horizon and ratchet look better is something else.
Yes, it is. Deal with it.
