Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
Lords of The Fallen
-
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
Is that a bullshot because footage released so far looked a big step down from that.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Represent(ative) of bullshot
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
most likely yes, but it was a new screen from the interviews they did today. theres a thread on here somewhere, too lazy to find it
“Internet Has Fun After PlayStation Offers Spider-Man Fans 19 Inches of Venom”
Where my boi ChiefDada at?
www.ign.com
Where my boi ChiefDada at?
Internet Has Fun After PlayStation Offers Spider-Man Fans 19 Inches of Venom - IGN
The internet is having fun with a social media post from PlayStation offering Spider-Man 2 fans "19 inches of Venom".
FalconPunch
Member
That was impressive because it ran on ps4... Doing this on a machine that 6.5x stronger than a ps4 is really not impressive, its expected. The computational resources have increased and as a result the bar has been drastically raised.
TonyK
Member
You don't have the game, right?
FalconPunch
Member
Yes I do. Other than the ship and some interior spaces, the game is very unimpressive from a visual standpoint.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
looking but there is always something wrong with IGN video quality, they upload video in slow bitrate or something
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
The video is dark but AWII has some incredibly moody and atmospheric ligthing, wow.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I am very impressed by the interiors in Starfield. The asset modeling is top notch. Everything feels like an actual object in the level. The lighting is stunning. I did not expect the game to look this good.
It could have been so much more as a game, but I think the reality is you need at least 1000 devs to pull off what Tod Howard Invisioned. Having couple of hundred full time devs just isn't enough to pull off a game of this scale and make it flawless, at least not till AI can assist and replace most manpower when it comes to development.
Btw, the game is terribly optimised on PC, for that there's absolutely no excuse. Bethesda persisting with Creation Engine will be their major downfall going forward.
Last edited:
The video is dark but AWII has some incredibly moody and atmospheric ligthing, wow.
Is that the janitor from Control?
SimTourist
Member
Yeah, and Mr Door is supposed to be Mr Hatch from Quantum Break, but they don't have the rights and obviously Lance Reddick is no more.
M1987
Member
Indoors do look good,but it's not that impressive.Outdoor areas look really bad,especially New AtlantisI am very impressed by the interiors in Starfield. The asset modeling is top notch. Everything feels like an actual object in the level. The lighting is stunning. I did not expect the game to look this good.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
Yeah, basic havok is incredibly nextgen.
GymWolf
Gold Member
Any game with havok does that.
The only different thing is that you can horde more objects in the same place in bethesda games.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
Noob, this was almost 13 years ago
Even zelda on a fucking switch is more nextgen than that.
Last edited:
This has gotta be one of the most polarizing games ever made graphically. Some aspects of it look hella good, like next-gen good but other aspects look straight up PS3.I am very impressed by the interiors in Starfield. The asset modeling is top notch. Everything feels like an actual object in the level. The lighting is stunning. I did not expect the game to look this good.
Same as FF16, that game looked like it was running on PS5 and PS3 at the same time.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
PC gamers have really lost it. I liked Todd Howard's response. It's a next gen game. Upgrade your fucking PC.
This does not help our cause. People on PC want their shitty 2016 cards doing 1080p 60 fps in next gen only games without upgrading their CPUs thinking games are still tied to 1.6 ghz Jaguar CPUs. I remember last gen everyone threw away their 570s and 580s the moment the PS4 came out and the 970 turned into the most popular card at the time. A card with 2x more tflops. In todays age, that would be the 3080 or 6800xt. And yet people want these games to work on 1060s, 2060s and 3060s. GTFO.
Meanwhile on consoles you have people getting butthurt over lack of 60 fps in next gen only games after getting used to three years of cross gen nonsense. Or the fact that games have to drop down to 720p to hit 60 fps. You have people bitching that not every game is native 4k. I swear the discourse on forums has gotten dumber since covid. You can either have last gen games at 60 fps or 4k or you can have next gen games at 30 fps. There is only so much GPU power to go around.
Starfield is uneven. I despise the downgrade to the open world. But there is no doubt that the game is doing A LOT of next gen things. Way more than even FF16 did. You simply dont get interiors like this in games. We were just discussing how The Order's level of detail still hasnt been matched despite recent linear releases like Callisto and Dead Space. Starfield is an RPG and manages to sneak in these stunning graphics out of nowhere with a massive NPC count. The lighting is way beyond what the Order was doing.
I posted this vid of TLOU Part 1 maxed out on PC a few weeks ago to show some very ordinary graphics. Just comparing the interior sections of these two games should be enough to point out why a 60 fps game on 10 tflops console runs at 60 fps. Its simply not pushing the GPU as hard.
This does not help our cause. People on PC want their shitty 2016 cards doing 1080p 60 fps in next gen only games without upgrading their CPUs thinking games are still tied to 1.6 ghz Jaguar CPUs. I remember last gen everyone threw away their 570s and 580s the moment the PS4 came out and the 970 turned into the most popular card at the time. A card with 2x more tflops. In todays age, that would be the 3080 or 6800xt. And yet people want these games to work on 1060s, 2060s and 3060s. GTFO.
Meanwhile on consoles you have people getting butthurt over lack of 60 fps in next gen only games after getting used to three years of cross gen nonsense. Or the fact that games have to drop down to 720p to hit 60 fps. You have people bitching that not every game is native 4k. I swear the discourse on forums has gotten dumber since covid. You can either have last gen games at 60 fps or 4k or you can have next gen games at 30 fps. There is only so much GPU power to go around.
Starfield is uneven. I despise the downgrade to the open world. But there is no doubt that the game is doing A LOT of next gen things. Way more than even FF16 did. You simply dont get interiors like this in games. We were just discussing how The Order's level of detail still hasnt been matched despite recent linear releases like Callisto and Dead Space. Starfield is an RPG and manages to sneak in these stunning graphics out of nowhere with a massive NPC count. The lighting is way beyond what the Order was doing.
I posted this vid of TLOU Part 1 maxed out on PC a few weeks ago to show some very ordinary graphics. Just comparing the interior sections of these two games should be enough to point out why a 60 fps game on 10 tflops console runs at 60 fps. Its simply not pushing the GPU as hard.
arkhamguy123
Member
Shit it better be. Look at what their competitors are doing while having to run on a shitty ass series S (avatar, Alan wake 2, fable, starfield)
They have 10.3 tflops to play with seeing as how it’s exclusive. In a sane world Spider-Man 2 should be the clear graphical gold medalist this year with how big and bloated that budget is too
GymWolf
Gold Member
I'm just not sure how much they can improve.
It sound strange to say after i blasted starfield, but i'm not sure if the highs of spidey2 are gonna reach the highs of starfield.
The lows are not gonna be as low tho.
Last edited:
arkhamguy123
Member
I’m hoping they have some tricks up their sleeve when I’m actually playing it. Because like I said havin over double the base power, this should be flirting with the matrix demo.
Instead what they showed this summer at the “showcase” looked like a goddamn Xbox 360 game. Chase scene 100% looked shittier than say uncharted 4s chase scene. The symbiote texture and the brown PS3 environment and outdoor lighting quality were a joke. It was a halo infinite level disaster if you ask me. If it weren’t Spider-Man and a PS exclusive the internet would’ve rained hell on it like they did with halo
Last edited:
Luipadre
Member
The video is dark but AWII has some incredibly moody and atmospheric ligthing, wow.
I really hope they dont fuck up the HDR. This will be their first game with HDR so im a bit nervous. Those blacks hopefully will be blacks and not grey on OLED
Bad Dragon have upgraded their character art then.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
I agree with
SlimySnake
that the game looks stunning (and I'm sure his game looks better as I was playing it on Series X) but yeah I am of the opinion if the game was given another year or two in the oven it could have been the No Mans Sky + what it actually is a lot of people were expecting.Someone with engine knowledge correct me but if their in house engine is so highly segmented (like it seems having to literally load another small indoor area to the next area at times) and we can't just fly to any planet in the galaxy then why wouldn't they not only segment the engine assets into separate star systems but segment it into singular planets so it loads the planet area first when you travel to it then it loads the playable area of the planet when you get closer then actually allows you fly into it and land anywhere in said playable area (using some story shit that you can only enter specific areas of a planets atmosphere to cover the mechanic with narrative) ? Surely that's better than the constant fast traveling and loading screens.
Overall the game is a 10 looks wise, a 10 OST wise, a 10 atmosphere wise, an 8 for character models and their voice acting but what lets it down for me and destroys the whole experience is the bland as fuck story, the still janky gunplay (outside of the starting corridor sections which had me initially impressed) and the absolutely RIDICULOUS amount of fast traveling and loading (of which it's not the current gen 2-5 seconds of loading but rather constant chunks of 10 or 30 seconds breaks in play).
I think a 7 is where I'd rate it overall and despite paying the £35 like the sucker I am for a single days early access I have dropped it already after about 5 hours of play. Visually it's pretty close to a 10 imo although the few times I did venture into the more open areas on a couple of planets the framerate tanked to about 22-25fps when I dared to get into combat with multiple enemies on a desert like planet... 30fps is fine if it's locked, has good frame pacing and has responsive controls (which the controls are excellent for 30fps when it sticks to 30fps).
I can see the appeal of the game and I do wish all of you who are enjoying it get 100's of hours of entertainment out of the game!!
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I like how we never learn. This is classic insomniac. Remember the venom shot?
Actual trailer. Cutscene too. Rain apparently only exists in bullshots.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
Isn't this due to art direction? The first pic is for Entertainment Weekly lol They probably added the rain in after effects to jazz the picture up for the mainstream audience who reads that publication.I like how we never learn. This is classic insomniac. Remember the venom shot?
Actual trailer. Cutscene too. Rain apparently only exists in bullshots.
I keep saying it but we shouldn't get on to Insomniac of all studios considering their visual fidelity, their engine, their framerate / resolution / RT options, their high quality motion blur and the fact they're the only developer that has released a Remaster, a smaller scale game, one of the few "next gen" impressive early games and very soon another full AAA current gen only game out inside the first three years of PS5's life.
Spider-Man 2 looks really, really good if you're just watching the latest trailer and not pausing it for screenshots and nit-picking the fuck out of it like we do
It will look even better by the time it launches because there will have been another three months+ of polish on top of what we saw in the last trailer!
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I have been defending this game in like 4 threads on gaf, but i agree with this post. I am very disappointed by how disjointed it feels especially for a bethesda game. In the review thread, I said that I dont want this to be No Mans Sky, I just need this to be Skyrim or Fallout in space. The problem is that their overreliance on fast travel and menus and lack of a single coherent world has taken away what made skyrim and fallout so great in the first place. You just cant lose yourself in that world because the world is constantly being changed and left behind.I agree with
Someone with engine knowledge correct me but if their in house engine is so highly segmented (like it seems having to literally load another small indoor area to the next area at times) and we can't just fly to any planet in the galaxy then why wouldn't they not only segment the engine assets into separate star systems but segment it into singular planets so it loads the planet area first when you travel to it then it loads the playable area of the planet when you get closer then actually allows you fly into it and land anywhere in said playable area (using some story shit that you can only enter specific areas of a planets atmosphere to cover the mechanic with narrative) ? Surely that's better than the constant fast traveling and loading screens.
Overall the game is a 10 looks wise, a 10 OST wise, a 10 atmosphere wise, an 8 for character models and their voice acting but what lets it down for me and destroys the whole experience is the bland as fuck story, the still janky gunplay (outside of the starting corridor sections which had me initially impressed) and the absolutely RIDICULOUS amount of fast traveling and loading (of which it's not the current gen 2-5 seconds of loading but rather constant chunks of 10 or 30 seconds breaks in play).
I think a 7 is where I'd rate it overall and despite paying the £35 like the sucker I am for a single days early access I have dropped it already after about 5 hours of play. Visually it's pretty close to a 10 imo although the few times I did venture into the more open areas on a couple of planets the framerate tanked to about 22-25fps when I dared to get into combat with multiple areas on a desert like planet... 30fps is fine if it's locked, has good frame pacing and has responsive controls (which the controls are excellent for 30fps when it sticks to 30fps).
I can see the appeal of the game and I do wish all of you who are enjoying it get 100's of hours of entertainment out of the game!!
I honestly liked how Andromeda handled it. 4-5 big giant open worlds and you still got to travel around in space. But once you landed on a planet, you could lose yourself exploring it for hours. Obviously it wasnt very good exploring but thats what I expected from starfield. there is no reason to explore these planets and worse the IT factor of stumbling into a new quest or new dungeon is completely gone.
Its funny that i also think this game is a 7 because i find myself defending its technical accomplishments but i have just been trashing this game nonstop to my friends in private. im afraid that if i step foot into the OT with my complaints i will get threadbanned instantly. this is a big misstep by bethesda.
P.S No mans Sky was made by 20 people. if they can implement landing on planets and taking off into space, if they can implement flying on planets, if they can implement going into your fucking ship without a loading screen then bethesda with their 500 devs and 8 years of dev time on next gen hardware should be able to as well. i dont mind loading screens, especially when they are just a second long my 7.5 gbps ssd but come on. just do it. put in the extra effort and get it to work, it wouldve gone a long way towards keeping the game feel like a journey instead of this disjointed mess full of loading screens and fast travel.
Last edited:
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
FF16 was uneven but deserved defending and so does starfield.
Some bad parts dont change that
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Well Im disappointed because of the downgrade from the original reveal. I dont care for liars. You can view my posting here. Ive stanned for these guys for years. Ratchet was my top next gen game until Horizon hit despite my concerns about them targeting native 4k. Ive posted dozens of pics of Spiderman's ray traced reflections to show why RT is so important for visual fidelity. But they could be doing much better than this. it's like they didnt even try.Isn't this due to art direction? The first pic is for Entertainment Weekly lol They probably added the rain in after effects to jazz the picture up for the mainstream audience who reads that publication.
I keep saying it but we shouldn't get on to Insomniac of all studios considering their visual fidelity, their engine, their framerate / resolution / RT options, their high quality motion blur and the fact they're the only developer that has released a Remaster, a smaller scale game, one of the few "next gen" impressive early games and very soon another full AAA current gen only game out inside the first three years of PS5's life.
Spider-Man 2 looks really, really good if you're just watching the latest trailer and not pausing it for screenshots and nit-picking the fuck out of it like we do
Say what you will about starfield, but its a huge massive improvement over Fallout 4 and Fallout 76. The interiors are mind blowing at times and way better than the best looking games of last gen like TLOU2 and Callisto. Nothing ive seen from spiderman, not even the cutscenes show a noticeable leap over spiderman 1 let alone a generational leap.
If you told me this was from the next naughty dog game, i wouldve believed you but its fucking bethesda and its topping insomniac. as a fan of this studio and sony studios in general, this hurts.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
It really does seem like it's their engine tech debt holding them back when it comes to what their original vision seemed to be and the absolute mess of loading screens we got almost a decade later. There is absolutely no reason that the play areas are so tiny, segmented and small from as you say (and let's be honest MS will have flooder outsourced teams and their tech guys in to help get this out for the past year) much more than 500 developers and 7/8 years of dev time. Imagine Rockstar released something like this full of tiny areas and constant loading or hell even Ubisoft... they'd be absolutely roasted online and quite rightly so but Bethesda seem to get a pass for some reason maybe because PC only (and now Xbox) players thinking that they're their very own Bungie or Naughty Dog?
This isn't really relevant because I'm not a fanboy, I own all platforms and I'm always open to new quality games first and foremost but I do wonder if I just don't get Bethesda games. I tried many, many times to get into Fallout 3, 4 and Skyrim and they never clicked with me because they felt extremely janky in terms of their systems and mechanics. They also performed terribly on PS3/4 and their games always just felt low quality in general compared to the other AAA development teams that get the same sort of worship online. I guess it's a company I just don't "get". A lot of people feel the same way about Nintendo and that's fine but I will say that Nintendo almost always nail the three core pillars - level design, gameplay mechanics and solid performance (usually 60fps on shit hardware) in 80% of their first party games.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
No arguments from me on the visual front. Starfield blew me away. 10/10 and one of the nicest looking current gen games so far on console anyway although I suppose you could add an asterix next to it considering it's targeting 30fps and then dropping down to ~25fps in the large main city and in any area open World area larger than a few rooms glued together, at least in my experienceWell Im disappointed because of the downgrade from the original reveal. I dont care for liars. You can view my posting here. Ive stanned for these guys for years. Ratchet was my top next gen game until Horizon hit despite my concerns about them targeting native 4k. Ive posted dozens of pics of Spiderman's ray traced reflections to show why RT is so important for visual fidelity. But they could be doing much better than this. it's like they didnt even try.
Say what you will about starfield, but its a huge massive improvement over Fallout 4 and Fallout 76. The interiors are mind blowing at times and way better than the best looking games of last gen like TLOU2 and Callisto. Nothing ive seen from spiderman, not even the cutscenes show a noticeable leap over spiderman 1 let alone a generational leap.
If you told me this was from the next naughty dog game, i wouldve believed you but its fucking bethesda and its topping insomniac. as a fan of this studio and sony studios in general, this hurts.
Also if you go back and watch the Spider-Man 2 trailer the rain is definitely in it with Venom in that shot you posted.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
nah, its not you. i didnt 'get' bethesda games until skyrim and that too i didnt play until 2014 on a souped up PC at 60 fps. couldnt imagine playing it on a ps3 running at 20 fps.
hell, even skyrim didnt click with me until i decided to go rouge and skipped doing story quests and went did all the guild quests and armor quests for the next 100 hours. i will have to go back and check my achievements but i maybe did 4 story missions. fallout 4 i only liked because of the weapon and settlement building and vats. again, got into it despite hating the jankiness and underwhelming campaign because the world let me get lost in it, but sadly the planet hopping nature of starfield just pulls me out of the game. I keep playing because the visuals are so astounding but man this is not the game i wanted.
And yeah, i mentioned No Mans Sky because they were only 20 devs. Rockstar and ubisoft would never even dream of having this many loading screen on a last gen game instead of a fancy new ssd game.
that sucks. on pc the lowest it drops is 40-45 fps in big cities and thankfully vrr handles it.No arguments from me on the visual front. Starfield blew me away. 10/10 and one of the nicest looking current gen games so far on console anyway although I suppose you could add an asterix next to it considering it's targeting 30fps and then dropping down to ~25fps in the large main city and in any area open World area larger than a few rooms glued together, at least in my experience
Also if you go back and watch the Spider-Man 2 trailer the rain is definitely in it with Venom in that shot you posted.
Polygonal_Sprite
Member
The craziest thing about Starfield to me is that this is the company that apparently almost single handily inspired Breath of the Wild. One of the largest Worlds ever made in gaming with absolutely zero loading times and just one giant seamless environment... on a Wii FUCKING U lol. I get Starfield is multiple planets ect but still a Series X is about 75-100x the compute power of a Wii U. Someone seriously screwed the pooch in terms of the planning and / or the engine limitations to require a near constant menu fast travel system the game mainly uses at least during the early campaign.
Glad to hear it's not just me who struggled to get into their games. I remember swinging an axe in Skyrim the first time and thinking it felt like swinging a foam toy at the enemy. The World was obviously vast and beyond anything at the time though so it's reputation is definitely warranted and as I said above it heavily inspired BotW so it will always have my thanks for that.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
oh yeah, i swung the sword or axe or whatever it was and i knew that instant it wouldnt do. played as a mage and joined the guild almost immediately. way better experience. Fallout 4's VAT system was incredible and their weapon building system was ingenious. sadly, starfield has no magic and no vats and no weapon building. it honestly feels like cod its so basic.
Last edited:
arkhamguy123
Member
Woah woah woah… no spoilers but theres magic and weapon customization
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
I truly don't understand why there are so many half measures that Bethesda took with Starfield. From no VATS, to the shoddy ship travel/combat, to NPC'S not reacting properly to things like stealing their goods. It comes across as either laziness or they cut development short. Very reminiscent of Cyberpunk in that respect.
There are some things they did well but this was supposed to be their dream project, right? If I was making my dream game I'd be insuring that each system was fully thought out and programmed for. Graphically the game is mostly good. Audio and voice acting is great. Combat controls better than any if their other games but then a lot of things feel half assed. It's no wonder lots of people feel like they oversold is the game and that expectations havn't been met.
I’ve finally played some Starfield.
I really don’t feel like the washed out, low-contrast look is doing the game and favours visually. It’s a real shame about that.
I don’t know what Bethesdas thinking is there, but they have eyes and surely must be able to see that it looks bad.
I’d hope for a toggle to switch it off or modify it but I imagine that isn’t coming any time soon, if ever.
I really don’t feel like the washed out, low-contrast look is doing the game and favours visually. It’s a real shame about that.
I don’t know what Bethesdas thinking is there, but they have eyes and surely must be able to see that it looks bad.
I’d hope for a toggle to switch it off or modify it but I imagine that isn’t coming any time soon, if ever.