• 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

GymWolf

Gold Member
There is nothing in space so thats the easiest thing to render.

Foliage and vast open worlds will always be the hardest on GPU, but in starfield's case, the settlements will be bottlenecked by the CPU a la Baldur's Gate 3's Act 3 so expect drops there if you skimped out on the CPU.

Check out what cod looked like in space. Infinity Warfare at 60 fps. last gen. Absolutely stunning space battles.
I mean, you have to render super fast paced space ships and a lot of particles and shit...also maybe asteroids...

I have a 13600k.
 

Lethal01

Member
This is what realtime rendering can do on a PS5.
3N3Fy42.jpg
FyW_ibyX0AEPvBD

And I assume what you are trying it imply is that, this is impressive and close to the detail to the movies models, but no, it's not in the same dimension,

It makes as much sense as posting this.


This is what Realtime rendering can do on a PS5.
ss_2e55bbb419abf94f0bfd88d7d74f4970e8a2c4ab.1920x1080.jpg
FFVII-01438-Sephiroth-Cloud-End-Battle-Omnislash.png
Maybe not in gameplay but atleast in cutscenese where we don't need to do any gameplay logic and can add tons of hero light we should be able to come fairly close to this on ps2
019-740x416.jpg

realtime cutscenes have access to way better character models, lighting, hero lighting, and other visual effects due to cutscenes not needing to run game logic and the GPU rendering mostly characters up close.
And movies have access to being able to spend a minutes per frame, rendered by a super computer, and if that's not enough they can spend an hour per frame or use 100 computers.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
I mean, you have to render super fast paced space ships and a lot of particles and shit...also maybe asteroids...

I have a 13600k.
Think of the ships like character models. more elaborate than regular enemies but thats pretty much it. The background is pretty much nothing. no geometry, no foliage, no tesselation required, no LODs needed for draw distance.

your CPU is fine. it will come down to just how well optimized their cities are but space battles should not be a problem at 60 fps and 1800p-4k.
 

mrqs

Member
Starfield is coming and all that I expect is some pretty nice-looking lighting, which is already a massive step-up compared to the original 15 minute gameplay we got back in 2022.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
And I assume what you are trying it imply is that, this is impressive and close to the detail to the movies models, but no, it's not in the same dimension,

It makes as much sense as posting this.





And movies have access to being able to spend a minutes per frame, rendered by a super computer, and if that's not enough they can spend an hour per frame or use 100 computers.
Right and honestly if you dont think that is impressive then there is not much I can do to change your mind on what does or does not look close to photorealistic or cg.
 

SimTourist

Member
Right and honestly if you dont think that is impressive then there is not much I can do to change your mind on what does or does not look close to photorealistic or cg.
It's impressive in the context of videogame graphics, but there is a massive gulf between what games and movies are doing. Even going back 20 years take Gollum in LoTR, they were already doing skeletal simulation, muscle simulation, skin simulation, hair simulation, clothes simulation, subsurface scattering, etc. Games are not doing any of these today at all aside from cheap SSS approximations. We have wooden static models with 2D hair, painted on clothes, no skeleton or muscles inside the model, hard skin with no light scattering or penetration. What you see on the surface and what's going on under the hood are very different. Yes, developers can make good looking scenes in certain conditions and a lot of tricks and lot of time and manpower. But to say that it's even remotely close to what CGI is doing is wrong on all levels, not even current day CGI but from 20 years ago.
 

Lethal01

Member
There are great looking videogame models and there this :



alita_battle_angel_4k_45.png

Just the texture detail of the skin is like 15x that of the highest quality game characters out there, made of materials that are many times more complex.

I'll admit there are thounsands of movies out there and I'm sure you can find one with absolutely terrible game level CGI, but people here really trying to use AVATAR as an example.
 
Last edited:

SimTourist

Member

alita_battle_angel_4k_45.png

Just the texture detail of the skin is like 15x that of the highest quality game characters out there, made of materials that are many times more complex.

I'll admit there are thounsands of movies out there and I'm sure you can find one with absolutely terrible game level CGI, but people here really trying to use AVATAR as an example.

Games are about on par with the Rock cgi from the Mummy.
0x0.jpg
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
Phenomenal looking game. Anyone played it? Didn’t get the best reviews but I’d be interested just because the production values are so insane. Seems like it will come to Game Pass or Sony Game Pass sooner rather than later…
It's the worst game of last year. I tried to ignore it and play it only for graphics... and I still had a bad time
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Oh, if this is PS5 footage it looks nice actually.
but if it's on PC the lighting is looking really meh, Screen space reflections, no shadows, no/extremely innacurate AO.
Don't think it's a step above Plague tale requiem, but also too lazy to check.
Dude this makes Plagues Tale look like Forspoken.

I will never understand the praise for Plague's Tale. Looks last gen as fuck. This feels like a clear step up in lighting.
 

Lethal01

Member
Dude this makes Plagues Tale look like Forspoken.

I will never understand the praise for Plague's Tale. Looks last gen as fuck. This feels like a clear step up in lighting.

Plague atleast had raytraced shadows, it maybe have better use of lighting, but it looks like a technical step back, this definitely ain't matching other games with rt shadows,ao and reflections.
Like, it's a step down from Fornite for sure and still hasn't beat control.

But enough negativity, the lighting is just what keeps jumping out at me every time i see the screen filled with glowing object.
The enemy density is where it shines, and it's got pretty great use of color.

It's geometry is "chunkier" lots of good sized and simple shapes making people perceive it as higher detail while not making things too hard for it's shadow system.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Gold Member
I saw much better screens but i can't find them.

Some textures in this game are first class, same for the never enough praised atomic heart.

I still think it looks crossgen at best tho, i was not a fan of the complete package, but for a small team, they did good.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Gold Member
This looks seriously fantastic. To some people who post in this thread 'good graphics' mean:

  • Oversaturated colors
  • Headache inducing camera effects
  • Contrast higher than Snoop Dogg
  • Vaseline like depth of field on everything
Check most of these and they'll be screaming 'NEXT GEN!!!'. Very weird behavior.
I think it looks like good crossgen graphic.

It doesn't send chills to my peewee, so to speak.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Gold Member
Isn't Plague Tale considered to be in like top 10 best looking games ever? I only played for 58 minutes according to my Steam account but I've heard people praising it a lot.
Sure, same as horizon 2 being considered top 5 if not top 3, they still are crossgen tho.

Sure they have SOME nextgen features, but does control looks nextgen because it has rtx? nah, not anymore in 2023.
 
Last edited:

Lethal01

Member
Yeah I was never overly impressed it always looked inconsistent to me we'll see some areas that look great especially at night with the different moons in the atmosphere but for it to get the label as the best looking upcoming next-gen game had me puzzled

It's weird, I can atleast agree that the new warhammer looks nice, and I can appreciate a lot of what starfield is doing technically.
But every screenshot I see of it just looks ugly not just graphically but artwise.
 

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
Sure, same as horizon 2 being considered top 5 if not top 3, they still are crossgen tho.

Sure they have SOME nextgen features, but does control looks nextgen because it has rtx? nah, not anymore in 2023.

I'd say: work smarter, not harder. What they were able to achieve on PS4 is seriously impressive.

What's that new game from EA that takes advantage of every UE5 feature? The one where you pew pew from your hand like a complete dick head? See, this game requires NASA level hardware to run smoothly but still looks like generic fantasy garbage. It's not even in the same league as something like Forbidden West. And that game works on 2013 piece of shit technology. That's impressive.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
I'd say: work smarter, not harder. What they were able to achieve on PS4 is seriously impressive.

What's that new game from EA that takes advantage of every UE5 feature? The one where you pew pew from your hand like a complete dick head? See, this game requires NASA level hardware to run smoothly but still looks like generic fantasy garbage. It's not even in the same league as something like Forbidden West. And that game works on 2013 piece of shit technology. That's impressive.
Never said that guerrilla aren't impressive.

They are top 3 graphical dev right now.

But the fact that on ps4 the game looks 85% the same show how badly used the ps5 is.

It's not their fault if jimbo is a greedy fuck.

i didn't bought a ps5 to play ps4 games with bells and whistles.
 
Last edited:

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
Never said that guerrilla aren't impressive.

They are top 3 graphical dev right now.

But the fact that on ps4 the game looks 85% the same show how badly used the ps5 is.

It's not their fault if jimbo is a greedy fuck.

i didn't bought a ps5 to play ps4 games with bells and whistles.

100%. What I was trying to say is that talent and art direction is equally as important as the newest technology. I honestly can't wait to see Spider-Man 2 running natively on my TV. If it doesn't blow me away as some of the PS4 exclusives did, I'm donating my PS5 to charity, fuck it.
 

Represent.

Represent(ative) of bad opinions


Yeah, this is shitting on practically everything. It has the same fidelity as the top tier games with WAY larger scale battles and actual destruction. Best looking game of the gen thus far.

Im going to buy the living fuck out of this game. To me this is finally a "The Order" moment.

A random ass game just comes out of fucking nowhere and decimates
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Lol no it doesn't

CT93eSK.jpg

FD3Ev2D.jpg

9Sj4haW.jpg


It looks marginally better.
photomode shots dont count. we know it looks nothing like that in motion. its a very cross gen looking game. Lighting looks like last Gen ue4 quality. Hell Star Wars has better lighting. And it’s also ue4.

Don’t make me pull up ugly shots of that game. We discussed this plenty in the df threads for this game last year.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
This looks seriously fantastic. To some people who post in this thread 'good graphics' mean:

  • Oversaturated colors
  • Headache inducing camera effects
  • Contrast higher than Snoop Dogg
  • Vaseline like depth of field on everything
Check most of these and they'll be screaming 'NEXT GEN!!!'. Very weird behavior.
Yes it’s called cinematography. There is a reason why euro trash studios that push fancy resray tracing effects and textures like the metro and plagues tale devs can’t compete with the naughty dogs and rockstar.
 
Top Bottom