Support NeoGAF

[Lethal01]

I mean, with exception of lighting, this isn't far off from how TLOU2 looks. I would expect a hypothetical native PS5 version to easily surpass this.

How would it, each frame of this animation would take minutes or hours to render on PS5

 

[ChiefDada]

How would it, each frame of this animation would take minutes or hours to render on PS5

Really, why? I could totally see this being a real time cut scene on a native PS5 version, even if that means using efficient techniques as opposed to pure compute power. I just don't see a large delta between what the PS4 game is doing on a sub 2TF machine with Jaguar CPU and HDD vs this trailer

 

[GymWolf]

You don't understand what diminishing returns mean. It means with the same relative gains in processing power, over time you get less and less impressive gains on graphics. You can't "reach" diminishing returns, we reached them day one with the first consoles...

There's no debate about diminishing returns if you understand what it means, they've been there since day one of video games. They'll always be there.

If people still have a doubt, look at the huge graphical difference between Atari VCS 2600 games and NES / Sega Master System games, then look at the comparatively very small difference between last gen and current gen games... That's what diminishing returns are and they can't be more obvious if you're old enough and you know about the first consoles.

Ultimately, graphics will be so close to photorealism you won't be able to tell if it's gen Y or gen Y+1. Actually that's sometimes already the case between PS4 and PS5 versions, but it would never have happened between a VCS 2600 game and a NES game, the difference was that hudge. Hence... diminishing returns.

It doesn't mean you won't get better graphics obviously.

Yeah i know what the term strictly means my furry lombax friend, it's just that some people use that term to say that there is no more room for graphic advancements nowadays and that we are close to photorealism when we still are light years away, and that piss me off.

Thanks for the heads up anyway.

 

[anothertech]

Lol

When we reach photorealism you will know.

We have a ways to go

 

[GymWolf]

Lol

When we reach photorealism you will know.

We have a ways to go

I know that but some people are convinced that there are no big progress to do in graphics.

Just to see good real life physics we are gonna have to wait like decades and decades lmao.

 

[Hunnybun]

...No? Isn't the whole point of video games (and all entertainment in general) an escape FROM reality? If you really wanted to come close to reality, you'd just... Turn the monitor off and get up.
Also, i think we're still a ways away from photorealism. The sad truth is that even the prettiest games on consoles can have really bad looking textures, or low poly assets you can see that completely removes you from the immersion and reminds you that YES, this is a video game and not a live action movie.
Until we get to a point where the textures have 0 blur and the polygons cannot be seen, we won't be photorealistic. Because realism does not have polygons, and realism does not have blurry floors and walls (unless you've got bad eyesight, in which case that's sort of a you problem) neither does it have any sharp points on your fingers. If life looked like TLOU2 and was rendered real time on a PS4, there would be something very, very off about how everything looks, even if it does look very realistic

I don't think textures and geometry are too much the problem this gen. Textures should be pretty HD now with the SSDs, and polygon count is high enough to draw most assets accurately.

The problem is lighting. Other than UE5, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of getting that right on these consoles. But we've seen with Unreal that if you can do it, then we're pretty much at photorealism for static scenes. The next problem is then all those numerous things that AREN'T static, like foliage, fluids, fire, people and animals etc. Making all that look CG-like could be another couple of generations, maybe more.

 

[Haggard]

edit: H Hunnybun pretty much already said what I wanted to say.

 

[ZywyPL]

I don't think textures and geometry are too much the problem this gen. Textures should be pretty HD now with the SSDs, and polygon count is high enough to draw most assets accurately.

The problem is lighting. Other than UE5, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of getting that right on these consoles. But we've seen with Unreal that if you can do it, then we're pretty much at photorealism for static scenes. The next problem is then all those numerous things that AREN'T static, like foliage, fluids, fire, people and animals etc. Making all that look CG-like could be another couple of generations, maybe more.

Like you say, geometry and textures shouldn't be much of an issue anymore thanks to mesh shading and SSDs, but the problem is, the higher the polygon density the heavier everything else gets to compute, and PS4/XB1 gen already saw almost complete lack of ambient occlusion, resoluting in flat lighting and objects appearing to be floating, only pre-bsked GI looking good, so it's only logical to believe that while PS5/XSX will excel in some aspects, similar cut-backs will have to be made elsewhere.

 

[nemiroff]

...No? Isn't the whole point of video games (and all entertainment in general) an escape FROM reality?

I don't have an AH-64 Apache helicopter in my backyard.

 

[alloush]

"Cthulhu. Flesh-eating spiders. These soldiers are having a bad day! Discover how the VFX team behind Spider-Man created an animated thriller for Love, Death + Robots season 3, using a new real-time animation pipeline and Unreal Engine."

 

[Sosokrates]

Anyone know what type of lighting they use in the best cgi?

Is it all raytraced? If so why does the lighting in the best cgi look loads better then RT gi in metro exodus?

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

Anyone know what type of lighting they use in the best cgi?

Is it all raytraced? If so why does the lighting in the best cgi look loads better then RT gi in metro exodus?

i think it is path tracing

 

[Hawking Radiation]

First off…I know how tech works..this is my thread lol (also check out the Reeeeeeset Era Thread with devs from the industry)…also I know what to expect…and these consoles are capable of much more…year one had Ratchet and Clank and the Matrix Awakens and year two Horizon Forbidden West… I agree with you kind of but it shouldn’t take 5 years for a big leap…

You seem to know what we can expect with these next gen consoles.

So my question is what can we expect visuals wise because surely Forza Motorsport 8 and HellBlade 2 can't be what these consoles are capable of. Or am I expecting too much.

Please share whatever you know.

 

[ChiefDada]

Anyone know what type of lighting they use in the best cgi?

Is it all raytraced? If so why does the lighting in the best cgi look loads better then RT gi in metro exodus?

Maybe because the asset materials leave a lot to be desired, even though the lighting calculation is more accurate via ray tracing. Just guessing here.

 

[Lethal01]

Anyone know what type of lighting they use in the best cgi?

Is it all raytraced? If so why does the lighting in the best cgi look loads better then RT gi in metro exodus?

Just because something is using raytracing doesn't mean it will be as high quality as something that's also using raytracing but spending a thousand times more time on each frame.

You can still adjust settings to make huge sacrifices in quality/accuracy for faster speed. Also yes, big names use path tracing.

 

[Lethal01]

Really, why? I could totally see this being a real time cut scene on a native PS5 version, even if that means using efficient techniques as opposed to pure compute power. I just don't see a large delta between what the PS4 game is doing on a sub 2TF machine with Jaguar CPU and HDD vs this trailer

You act like this trailer is using "pure compute power" they are using techniques as efficient as what you will see in PS5 games, in addition to having several times the compute power.
Accurate,stable raytraced GI, Shadows, Reflections, Subsurface Scattering, volumes are extremely expensive.

I can't say much if you don't see the huge difference between the CGI and what we get, but to me it's like not seeing the difference between ps1 and ps2.

 

[Sosokrates]

Just because something is using raytracing doesn't mean it will be as high quality as something that's also using raytracing but spending a thousand times more time on each frame.

You can still adjust settings to make huge sacrifices in quality/accuracy for faster speed. Also yes, big names use path tracing.

Could this apply to none RT lighting?

I mean R+C rift apart looks like itvhas better lighting then last gen yet that is not RT.

I feel only a few things like RT reflections+ gi get talked about, there got to be other stuff which can radically improve visuals without RT or other realtime gi

This demo below is not using any rt or realtime gi (I think) and still looks better then current gen in some respects

 

[ChiefDada]

You act like this trailer is using "pure compute power" they are using techniques as efficient as what you will see in PS5 games, in addition to having several times the compute power.
Accurate,stable raytraced GI, Shadows, Reflections, Subsurface Scattering, volumes are extremely expensive.

I can't say much if you don't see the huge difference between the CGI and what we get, but to me it's like not seeing the difference between ps1 and ps2.

What can I say, I just don't find the difference between the offline and PS4 real-time to be so massive considering the specs. How you can characterize what I'm saying as blasphemy is beyond me when the announcement trailer was running on a PS4. I'm not praising the PS5 as some amazing, other worldly tech here. More like I'm asking these prerendered trailers to step their game up because they should be blowing real time rendering from a console out of the water.

 

[Lethal01]

What can I say, I just don't find the difference between the offline and PS4 real-time to be so massive considering the specs. How you can characterize what I'm saying as blasphemy is beyond me when the announcement trailer was running on a PS4. I'm not praising the PS5 as some amazing, other worldly tech here. More like I'm asking these prerendered trailers to step their game up because they should be blowing real time rendering from a console out of the water.

Then you are simply unaware of the power it takes to enable the jumps that you may see as minor.
You may see the skin shading looks "a little better" so PS5 "should" be able to do it. but then realize that being "a little" better takes a totally different method of processsing it which require 30x more time.

I will say that these trailers being very dark and having tons of motion blue does a lot to hide how much more detail is there. At the same time, even calculating motion blur that good could take seconds or minutes compared to the relatively cheap/fast motion blur you would have on PS5.

These trailers are already blowing the console games out of the water.

 

[sinnergy]

i think it is path tracing

It’s basically ray tracing , they use render man , Arnold , Vray or whatever renderer they use. Everything gets traced, reflections/ refractions , shadows , GI , basically the whole scene. You have settings to shoot more or less rays .. it’s heavy . My last frame rendered at 4 k in about 6 hours .. and my scene is still not ready .

 

[ChiefDada]

Then you are simply unaware of the power it takes to enable the jumps that you may see as minor.
You may see the skin shading looks "a little better" so PS5 "should" be able to do it. but then realize that being "a little" better takes a totally different method of processsing it which require 30x more time.

But it didn't, though

These trailers are already blowing the console games out of the water.

Again considering compute and render time differences...... no, they're not.

 

[Lethal01]

But it didn't, though
Again considering compute and render time differences...... no, they're not.

Those trailers are being rendered with quality several times higher than this in scenes that are far larger. You simply don't have a grasp of the amount of compute and time it takes to render them. This scene would already bring the PS5 to it's knees at this quality.

There is no reason to thing the PS5 being lets say 10x stronger than a PS4 means it should be able to use techniques that are 50x more complex with scenes that have 100x more geometry.

In terms of how "good" they look, that's just art. and I could say that Guilty Gear Strive looks better than pixar movies in terms of art.
But in terms of the accuracy of the rendering the consoles are blown out of the water and into the stratosphere. You may not think the Skin looks better. But having more accurate subsurface scattering is far more expensive even if you like the way they fake it on the PS4.

 

[Sosokrates]

Those trailers are being rendered with quality several times higher than this in scenes that are far larger. You simply don't have a grasp of the amount of compute and time it takes to render them. This scene would already bring the PS5 to it's knees at this quality.

There is no reason to thing the PS5 being lets say 10x stronger than a PS4 means it should be able to use techniques that are 50x more complex with scenes that have 100x more geometry.

In terms of how "good" they look, that's just art. and I could say that Guilty Gear Strive looks better than pixar movies in terms of art.
But in terms of the accuracy of the rendering the consoles are blown out of the water and into the stratosphere. You may not think the Skin looks better. But having more accurate subsurface scattering is far more expensive even if you like the way they fake it on the PS4.

As nice as those visuals look i bet a similer scene made in UE5 using nanite and lumen would look nearly as good, material shaders would probably not be as accurate but I bet geometry could be matched.

 

[Lethal01]

As nice as those visuals look i bet a similer scene made in UE5 using nanite and lumen would look nearly as good, material shaders would probably not be as accurate but I bet geometry could be matched.

I wasn't talking about the geometry at all, the point was everything else. Sure the geo could be matched.

 

[Sosokrates]

I wasn't talking about the geometry at all, the point was everything else. Sure the geo could be matched.

Sorry i was just going off on a tangent.

Hopefully PS6 will be able to do those kind of visuals.

 

[Kataploom]

I know that but some people are convinced that there are no big progress to do in graphics.

Just to see good real life physics we are gonna have to wait like decades and decades lmao.

Those are interactions, not graphics, tho... Now, the thing is if the affected objects look good when interacting with them, of if they involve breaking or some tasks related to a graphics pipeline... Can be wrong tho, but as a (non-dedicated game) dev that's as far as I can think

 

[GymWolf]

Those are interactions, not graphics, tho... Now, the thing is if the affected objects look good when interacting with them, of if they involve breaking or some tasks related to a graphics pipeline... Can be wrong tho, but as a (non-dedicated game) dev that's as far as I can think

Sure, but interactions can have graphic fidelity aswell right? a tree breaking in botw look visually less realistic than a tree breaking in the force unleashed videogame that looks worse than a tree breaking in horizon zero dawn etc.

And tbh, we are not gonna reach real life fidelity if the facade break down when you interact with something because physics is not on par with the level of detail, so we kinda need that to complete the picture, it is not an option if we talk about simulating real life on a videogame.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Then you are simply unaware of the power it takes to enable the jumps that you may see as minor.
You may see the skin shading looks "a little better" so PS5 "should" be able to do it. but then realize that being "a little" better takes a totally different method of processsing it which require 30x more time.

I will say that these trailers being very dark and having tons of motion blue does a lot to hide how much more detail is there. At the same time, even calculating motion blur that good could take seconds or minutes compared to the relatively cheap/fast motion blur you would have on PS5.

These trailers are already blowing the console games out of the water.

Why make it only about console? What PC games are comparing to those trailers?

 

[Lethal01]

Why make it only about console? What PC games are comparing to those trailers?

None, that's the point. But we are speaking specifically about PS5.

 

[Neilg]

The physics conversation is a tricky one - we are never going to get to a point where every game has a high fidelity level of breakable objects. The manpower it takes to design around it, QA, define consistent rules etc is way more significant than just needing to throw a bit more power at it. It'll only happen in games where they design around that being the hook, and so far there's a solid track record of every one of those having been a nightmare to work on, delayed and massively over budget.
'better physics' is such an open ended task too. Do objects fade and dissapear so they don't block the player? Is super realistic breaking all that important if it's all going to fade out in 10s anyway?

 

[SlimySnake]

I don't think textures and geometry are too much the problem this gen. Textures should be pretty HD now with the SSDs, and polygon count is high enough to draw most assets accurately.

The problem is lighting. Other than UE5, there doesn't seem to be much prospect of getting that right on these consoles. But we've seen with Unreal that if you can do it, then we're pretty much at photorealism for static scenes. The next problem is then all those numerous things that AREN'T static, like foliage, fluids, fire, people and animals etc. Making all that look CG-like could be another couple of generations, maybe more.

Yeah. GT Sports, GT7, Death Stranding, and TLOU2 are great examples of last gen games looking fairly photorealistic at times. It's always the lighting. it's the first thing that breaks the facade. I remember how in certain overcast conditions in some tracks with low vegetation, the game would look near photorealistic and then look like a PS3 game during daytime in some tracks. Some cutscenes in DS and TLOU2 look very close to photorealism even though they are essentially running on a 1.8 tflops GPU. In cutscenes, the enhanced lighting is the main reason the cutscenes look so much better than ingame visual despite being realtime.

Matrix to me looks pretty much photorealistic in cutscenes. In game, whatever, building look photorealistic, the rest not so much. But thats an open world game. A linear or even a wide linear game like TLOU3 should be able to achieve the lighting conditions needed for photorealism even during gameplay. The interactivity on the other hand is going to cost a lot more and yes, it will the thing we will see devs push in future generations.

Id like TLOU3 to aim for that CG tv spot's visuals and then put the rest of the GPU towards rendering better simulations and environmental interactivity along with a much higher enemy count. I cant do 5-8 people skirmishes anymore. thats so last gen.

 

[Kataploom]

The physics conversation is a tricky one - we are never going to get to a point where every game has a high fidelity level of breakable objects. The manpower it takes to design around it, QA, define consistent rules etc is way more significant than just needing to throw a bit more power at it. It'll only happen in games where they design around that being the hook, and so far there's a solid track record of every one of those having been a nightmare to work on, delayed and massively over budget.
'better physics' is such an open ended task too. Do objects fade and dissapear so they don't block the player? Is super realistic breaking all that important if it's all going to fade out in 10s anyway?

And the million dollar prize goes to your post (an imaginary million, don't get too excited)

Whenever I see people with "anger", "anxiety", "disappointment" and just a lot of hyperbolic feels because "crossgen bad!!!" and "games taking too long to make!!!" and "I want more physx and interaction and every NPC with different personality and lives and graphx!!!" I can only thing: "Dude, have you ever stopped one moment to thing how much all that would cost if they had the power to do it?"... Like games come from magic and dreams from visionary developers which only mission is to entertain THEM, lol.

Tech costs a lot, people srsly can't appreciate how complex and expensive Unity and UE are just for those companies leaving them for free, I do a lot of Unity stuff and can't fit in my mind how I can just get to use such a complex tool basically for free, there's just such an enormous work behind... And let alone the artists work behind each asset, because the cup you in the table in a random room in any game wasn't made by pure air and imagination, it had to be modeled, approved, implemented, etc, etc.

My hope is in AA industry, those guys can focus on good graphics without having to worry about complex mostly unnecessary systems just a tiny portion of players demand (Control and A Plague Tales are some examples).

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Here's my question: Why is it that one of the most talented studios in the industry known for their graphical prowess, when having the benefit of only having to develop for high spec hardware (ps5 and PC), why can't their next gen only remake of The Last of Us exceed the visuals they were able to do on the last gen 4 TB ps4 pro? I say the Pro because that version of Last of Us 2 had 1440p resolution and the Remake will most likely only have 1440p res on Ps5. The only extra power accounted for from what we saw of the already cherry picked for graphics trailer is the 60 fps (compared to Louis 30 fps on Pro).

But we know ps5 can boost Last gen games to 60 fps. Again though this is a Remake that had development not initially confined to a 2 tb ps4. They had a base to work with so all they needed to worry about was the graphics side of things. Now I know it still looks nice and pretty, but shouldn't this be at least a clear "step up" over part 2?

I think these systems are not powerful enough even taking into account the law of diminishing returns. Sony and MS probably were affected by the market not being in a great place. Hate to say it but VeterenFX guy is probably right in that they skimped on memory bandwith. That mightve been a game changer if they were willing to take a bit more of a loss on each unit sold.

MS and Sony should've insured that the systems could at least bring a generational leap by making sure that RT capabilities could bring next gen lighting and that there was enough bandwith to do it. If $100 extra in manufacturing costs was what is needed and they had to eat that $100 then so be it. As it stands this gen isn't wowing anyone with next gen games. Imagine if Forbidden West had RT GI...Last of Us 1 is a remake developed exclusively for ps5 and they couldn't get Ray Tracing working?

When Sony's own top tier devs arent able meet expectations then there might be an issue with the hardware...I dunno

 

[Hunnybun]

Yeah. GT Sports, GT7, Death Stranding, and TLOU2 are great examples of last gen games looking fairly photorealistic at times. It's always the lighting. it's the first thing that breaks the facade. I remember how in certain overcast conditions in some tracks with low vegetation, the game would look near photorealistic and then look like a PS3 game during daytime in some tracks. Some cutscenes in DS and TLOU2 look very close to photorealism even though they are essentially running on a 1.8 tflops GPU. In cutscenes, the enhanced lighting is the main reason the cutscenes look so much better than ingame visual despite being realtime.

Matrix to me looks pretty much photorealistic in cutscenes. In game, whatever, building look photorealistic, the rest not so much. But thats an open world game. A linear or even a wide linear game like TLOU3 should be able to achieve the lighting conditions needed for photorealism even during gameplay. The interactivity on the other hand is going to cost a lot more and yes, it will the thing we will see devs push in future generations.

Id like TLOU3 to aim for that CG tv spot's visuals and then put the rest of the GPU towards rendering better simulations and environmental interactivity along with a much higher enemy count. I cant do 5-8 people skirmishes anymore. thats so last gen.

If I were trying to make a next gen game that looked impressive I'd just focus on making it look alive as possible. Destruction, good animation, weather effects etc. I think that's where the biggest gains are.

I'd then just fit in the other stuff like resolution, poly count, even frame rate, around that.

 

[Hunnybun]

Here's my question: Why is it that one of the most talented studios in the industry known for their graphical prowess, when having the benefit of only having to develop for high spec hardware (ps5 and PC), why can't their next gen only remake of The Last of Us exceed the visuals they were able to do on the last gen 4 TB ps4 pro? I say the Pro because that version of Last of Us 2 had 1440p resolution and the Remake will most likely only have 1440p res on Ps5. The only extra power accounted for from what we saw of the already cherry picked for graphics trailer is the 60 fps (compared to Louis 30 fps on Pro).

But we know ps5 can boost Last gen games to 60 fps. Again though this is a Remake that had development not initially confined to a 2 tb ps4. They had a base to work with so all they needed to worry about was the graphics side of things. Now I know it still looks nice and pretty, but shouldn't this be at least a clear "step up" over part 2?

I think these systems are not powerful enough even taking into account the law of diminishing returns. Sony and MS probably were affected by the market not being in a great place. Hate to say it but VeterenFX guy is probably right in that they skimped on memory bandwith. That mightve been a game changer if they were willing to take a bit more of a loss on each unit sold.

MS and Sony should've insured that the systems could at least bring a generational leap by making sure that RT capabilities could bring next gen lighting and that there was enough bandwith to do it. If $100 extra in manufacturing costs was what is needed and they had to eat that $100 then so be it. As it stands this gen isn't wowing anyone with next gen games. Imagine if Forbidden West had RT GI...Last of Us 1 is a remake developed exclusively for ps5 and they couldn't get Ray Tracing working?

When Sony's own top tier devs arent able meet expectations then there might be an issue with the hardware...I dunno

It's a fair question but I know the answer isn't the hardware because Ratchet and HFW were also made by Sony 1P on the PS5 and look fantastic.

So I dunno. TLOU P1 was a serious disappointment though, no doubt. I think they just thought there was no need to advance their engine for it tbh.

 

[nominedomine]

Here's my question: Why is it that one of the most talented studios in the industry known for their graphical prowess, when having the benefit of only having to develop for high spec hardware (ps5 and PC), why can't their next gen only remake of The Last of Us exceed the visuals they were able to do on the last gen 4 TB ps4 pro? I say the Pro because that version of Last of Us 2 had 1440p resolution and the Remake will most likely only have 1440p res on Ps5. The only extra power accounted for from what we saw of the already cherry picked for graphics trailer is the 60 fps (compared to Louis 30 fps on Pro).

But we know ps5 can boost Last gen games to 60 fps. Again though this is a Remake that had development not initially confined to a 2 tb ps4. They had a base to work with so all they needed to worry about was the graphics side of things. Now I know it still looks nice and pretty, but shouldn't this be at least a clear "step up" over part 2?

I think these systems are not powerful enough even taking into account the law of diminishing returns. Sony and MS probably were affected by the market not being in a great place. Hate to say it but VeterenFX guy is probably right in that they skimped on memory bandwith. That mightve been a game changer if they were willing to take a bit more of a loss on each unit sold.

MS and Sony should've insured that the systems could at least bring a generational leap by making sure that RT capabilities could bring next gen lighting and that there was enough bandwith to do it. If $100 extra in manufacturing costs was what is needed and they had to eat that $100 then so be it. As it stands this gen isn't wowing anyone with next gen games. Imagine if Forbidden West had RT GI...Last of Us 1 is a remake developed exclusively for ps5 and they couldn't get Ray Tracing working?

When Sony's own top tier devs arent able meet expectations then there might be an issue with the hardware...I dunno

What expectations aren't ND meeting, your completely unrealistic expectations? This isn't what Uncharted 4 was for the PS4, it's more like what the TLoU Remaster was erly last gen (something they are doing in between their games but it just ended up being a bit bigger this time).

Obviously the systems are powerful enough even one and a half years after release it still going to cost about the same as one of these new consoles to buy just an equivalent GPU on PC in most markets. What do you want from console manufactures some sort magical technology?

As for TLoU Part I, we know how the game came about, it wasn't even originally going to be made by ND, it was being made by another studio with the objective of making a game with a similar visual fidelity to TLoU Part II using the same tech (TLoU Part II is still to this day one of the most impressive looking games on any platform despite being developed for the PS4). They also benefit from making the games visually consistent (a lot of people will be playing the games back to back with the upcoming HBO series and with it being released on PC).

It clearly isn't simply about hardware anymore, it's pretty much all about budget and production value.

 

[ChiefDada]

Here's my question: Why is it that one of the most talented studios in the industry known for their graphical prowess, when having the benefit of only having to develop for high spec hardware (ps5 and PC), why can't their next gen only remake of The Last of Us exceed the visuals they were able to do on the last gen 4 TB ps4 pro? I say the Pro because that version of Last of Us 2 had 1440p resolution and the Remake will most likely only have 1440p res on Ps5. The only extra power accounted for from what we saw of the already cherry picked for graphics trailer is the 60 fps (compared to Louis 30 fps on Pro).

But we know ps5 can boost Last gen games to 60 fps. Again though this is a Remake that had development not initially confined to a 2 tb ps4. They had a base to work with so all they needed to worry about was the graphics side of things. Now I know it still looks nice and pretty, but shouldn't this be at least a clear "step up" over part 2?

I think these systems are not powerful enough even taking into account the law of diminishing returns. Sony and MS probably were affected by the market not being in a great place. Hate to say it but VeterenFX guy is probably right in that they skimped on memory bandwith. That mightve been a game changer if they were willing to take a bit more of a loss on each unit sold.

I blame Sony marketing and their continued desire to be so uber secretive for most of the valid questions you're bringing up here. But I draw the line at validating vfx veteran's constant unwarranted concern about console memory bandwidth. The PS5 design philosophy included reduced cpu/gpu read back to and from RAM. There's even evidence to suggest that the PS5 cache subsystem can even overcome AMD Infinity Cache major weakness in maintaining high hit rate at higher resolutions (see the Touryst). Not saying it's definitive, but it's a compelling case, nevertheless. So it's premature at best to suggest they skimped on memory bandwidth, imo.

As far as TLOU Remake goes, the game releases in less than 2 months, so we'll be getting a decent gameplay showing in the coming weeks. Then we'll have a better basis for comparisons. I agree, it should be a clear step above even TLOU2, and based on the rumored install size of 70gb+ kraken data, I expect it to be.

 

[ChiefDada]

You may not think the Skin looks better. But having more accurate subsurface scattering is far more expensive even if you like the way they fake it on the PS4.

Sorry, but the skin rendering in the cinematic is worse than PS4, which surprises me. It honestly looks like something Madame Tussaud would climax to.

 

[SlimySnake]

Here's my question: Why is it that one of the most talented studios in the industry known for their graphical prowess, when having the benefit of only having to develop for high spec hardware (ps5 and PC), why can't their next gen only remake of The Last of Us exceed the visuals they were able to do on the last gen 4 TB ps4 pro? I say the Pro because that version of Last of Us 2 had 1440p resolution and the Remake will most likely only have 1440p res on Ps5. The only extra power accounted for from what we saw of the already cherry picked for graphics trailer is the 60 fps (compared to Louis 30 fps on Pro).

But we know ps5 can boost Last gen games to 60 fps. Again though this is a Remake that had development not initially confined to a 2 tb ps4. They had a base to work with so all they needed to worry about was the graphics side of things. Now I know it still looks nice and pretty, but shouldn't this be at least a clear "step up" over part 2?

I think these systems are not powerful enough even taking into account the law of diminishing returns. Sony and MS probably were affected by the market not being in a great place. Hate to say it but VeterenFX guy is probably right in that they skimped on memory bandwith. That mightve been a game changer if they were willing to take a bit more of a loss on each unit sold.

MS and Sony should've insured that the systems could at least bring a generational leap by making sure that RT capabilities could bring next gen lighting and that there was enough bandwith to do it. If $100 extra in manufacturing costs was what is needed and they had to eat that $100 then so be it. As it stands this gen isn't wowing anyone with next gen games. Imagine if Forbidden West had RT GI...Last of Us 1 is a remake developed exclusively for ps5 and they couldn't get Ray Tracing working?

When Sony's own top tier devs arent able meet expectations then there might be an issue with the hardware...I dunno

The answer to your question is that its a cross gen game. it was always a cross gen game. Back when the VSG studio started working on it and then again when ND took it over. ND can do better. The PS5 CAN do better. We have seen the UE5 demo and the Matrix Demo both running on PS5 hardware. yes, the PS5 hardware is limited by ram bandwidth but it should be able to run next gen visuals at 1440p 30 fps. The 6600xt is 10.7 tflops and only has 256 GBps of ram bandwidth and runs games like Guardians at 60 fps with no issues.

ND's next game will look photorealitic and on par with the matrix cutscenes. This is just a shitty side project that they overtook because they had nothing to do after shipping TLOU2 because Neil was too busy with the tv show and didnt have anything for the team to work on. I mean look at the difference in visuals between next gen only games like Ghostwire tokyo, deathpoop, godfall and a last gen game like HFW. It's a generational difference and HFW is literally a last gen game. Sony putting a PS5 only tag in front of it is just trying to fool us into thinking this is next gen but we are not dumb.

Avatar, that vin diesel game, fligt sim, the UE5 demos should show you that next gen visuals are indeed possible. it's just that these lazy devs are in a state of disarray and instead of standing up to cunts like Jim Ryan and herman hurst, they were content with making HFW, GOW, TLOU remake and GT7 last gen. Guys like Kaz, Cory and Neil are now so far high up the studio chain that they are execs and VPs themselves so they all get a cut of the revenue, and making these games cross gen appealed to them because they now stand to gain money from it. They are no longer the edgy director who valued his art over the suits trying to market it to the masses... they ARE the suits.

 

[SlimySnake]

It's a fair question but I know the answer isn't the hardware because Ratchet and HFW were also made by Sony 1P on the PS5 and look fantastic.

So I dunno. TLOU P1 was a serious disappointment though, no doubt. I think they just thought there was no need to advance their engine for it tbh.

hell, demon souls looks insane and its a 60 fps title. So its not like the ram bandwidth is holding back 60 fps titles like TLOU remake. I mean ratchet literally runs at native 4k 50 fps with bandwidth heavy RT reflections and while it doesnt look as good as the UE5 demos, it looks a gen ahead of all the other so-called next gen only games.

I am wondering what Demon Souls would look like on a PS4. If it runs at 1440p 60 fps on the PS5 then it should run at around 1200p 30 fps on the ps4 pro. or around 900p 30 fps on the base PS4. Id love to know what they would have to downgrade beyond resolution. the insanely high quality textures? the incredible lighting? or would it just be a resolution and framerate downgrade?

 

[Sosokrates]

Here's my question: Why is it that one of the most talented studios in the industry known for their graphical prowess, when having the benefit of only having to develop for high spec hardware (ps5 and PC), why can't their next gen only remake of The Last of Us exceed the visuals they were able to do on the last gen 4 TB ps4 pro? I say the Pro because that version of Last of Us 2 had 1440p resolution and the Remake will most likely only have 1440p res on Ps5. The only extra power accounted for from what we saw of the already cherry picked for graphics trailer is the 60 fps (compared to Louis 30 fps on Pro).

But we know ps5 can boost Last gen games to 60 fps. Again though this is a Remake that had development not initially confined to a 2 tb ps4. They had a base to work with so all they needed to worry about was the graphics side of things. Now I know it still looks nice and pretty, but shouldn't this be at least a clear "step up" over part 2?

I think these systems are not powerful enough even taking into account the law of diminishing returns. Sony and MS probably were affected by the market not being in a great place. Hate to say it but VeterenFX guy is probably right in that they skimped on memory bandwith. That mightve been a game changer if they were willing to take a bit more of a loss on each unit sold.

MS and Sony should've insured that the systems could at least bring a generational leap by making sure that RT capabilities could bring next gen lighting and that there was enough bandwith to do it. If $100 extra in manufacturing costs was what is needed and they had to eat that $100 then so be it. As it stands this gen isn't wowing anyone with next gen games. Imagine if Forbidden West had RT GI...Last of Us 1 is a remake developed exclusively for ps5 and they couldn't get Ray Tracing working?

When Sony's own top tier devs arent able meet expectations then there might be an issue with the hardware...I dunno

It may still prove to look better then TLOU2, but my guess is that it was in a bit of a development pickle, so ND took over and choose to make it PS5 exclusive because the more powerful tech makes it easier to complete development and provide incentive for PS5 purchase's.

Regarding the current systems being underpowered, sony + ms did the best they could with the tech available, they actually gave more powerful consoles in 2020 then 2013, by raising the cost to both them and the customer.

 

[KXVXII9X]

And the million dollar prize goes to your post (an imaginary million, don't get too excited)

Whenever I see people with "anger", "anxiety", "disappointment" and just a lot of hyperbolic feels because "crossgen bad!!!" and "games taking too long to make!!!" and "I want more physx and interaction and every NPC with different personality and lives and graphx!!!" I can only thing: "Dude, have you ever stopped one moment to thing how much all that would cost if they had the power to do it?"... Like games come from magic and dreams from visionary developers which only mission is to entertain THEM, lol.

Tech costs a lot, people srsly can't appreciate how complex and expensive Unity and UE are just for those companies leaving them for free, I do a lot of Unity stuff and can't fit in my mind how I can just get to use such a complex tool basically for free, there's just such an enormous work behind... And let alone the artists work behind each asset, because the cup you in the table in a random room in any game wasn't made by pure air and imagination, it had to be modeled, approved, implemented, etc, etc.

My hope is in AA industry, those guys can focus on good graphics without having to worry about complex mostly unnecessary systems just a tiny portion of players demand (Control and A Plague Tales are some examples).

My biggest issue is with the marketing of these kinds of games touting how realistic and immersion they are when there worlds are still static. I can only speak for myself, but I think better physics and AI are necessary for realism. Like don't sell me a live, sprawling open world when the world itself is more dead than a dinosaur.

I know it is a huge task and I don't think everyone has the privilege of making these kinds of games. I'm just not impressed with static worlds. Even games like SuperHot in VR is a HUGE step up in terms of interactivity. VR seems to do us more on interactivity than regular gaming and is more engaging. Games like Zelda BotW, Rockstar games, TLOU Part 2, and The Last Guardian spoiled me.

 

[anothertech]

...No? Isn't the whole point of video games (and all entertainment in general) an escape FROM reality? If you really wanted to come close to reality, you'd just... Turn the monitor off and get up.
Also, i think we're still a ways away from photorealism. The sad truth is that even the prettiest games on consoles can have really bad looking textures, or low poly assets you can see that completely removes you from the immersion and reminds you that YES, this is a video game and not a live action movie.
Until we get to a point where the textures have 0 blur and the polygons cannot be seen, we won't be photorealistic. Because realism does not have polygons, and realism does not have blurry floors and walls (unless you've got bad eyesight, in which case that's sort of a you problem) neither does it have any sharp points on your fingers. If life looked like TLOU2 and was rendered real time on a PS4, there would be something very, very off about how everything looks, even if it does look very realistic

I mean, if you turn the monitor off and get up you don't get to sword fight a dragon or steal a car and shoot a stripper in the face do you, no matter how good the graphics?

Photorealism could be the ultimate escape as it offers better immersion and much less imagination to get into it.

Obviously it won't be full immersion till vr suits and 16k headsets are available but photorealism may take about that long anyhow. And by then we might be hacking this simulation we call life.

 

[64bitmodels]

or steal a car and shoot a stripper in the face do you

you can

 

[Hunnybun]

hell, demon souls looks insane and its a 60 fps title. So its not like the ram bandwidth is holding back 60 fps titles like TLOU remake. I mean ratchet literally runs at native 4k 50 fps with bandwidth heavy RT reflections and while it doesnt look as good as the UE5 demos, it looks a gen ahead of all the other so-called next gen only games.

I am wondering what Demon Souls would look like on a PS4. If it runs at 1440p 60 fps on the PS5 then it should run at around 1200p 30 fps on the ps4 pro. or around 900p 30 fps on the base PS4. Id love to know what they would have to downgrade beyond resolution. the insanely high quality textures? the incredible lighting? or would it just be a resolution and framerate downgrade?

Unfortunately I don't have the technical knowledge to answer that confidently.

But inferring from the general "look" of the few next gen games so far, then yeah I'd say you never really got the very high geometry and high resolution textures of Demon's Souls on even the best looking PS4 games.

I'm guessing that's an SSD/memory thing as much as anything computational?

 

[anothertech]

you can

Doubt we have what it takes. None of us neckbeards can stand to play anything on hard mode. Let alone permadeath

 

[Haggard]

Sorry i was just going off on a tangent.

Hopefully PS6 will be able to do those kind of visuals.

Ha, no chance if you`re talking about anything but static scenery.
To look this good in motion you`d need to wander in path tracing territory and on this level that is several generations away, the hardware power necessary for that is astronomical.
At best we can hope for the partial and heavily denoised RT implementations we have now to finally become standard on consoles replacing the prebaked lighting wherever possible---maybe even with more than just the handful of bounces we usually see and more than only 1-2 light sources being allowed to throw shadows per scene....

 

[Sosokrates]

Ha, no chance if you`re talking about anything but static scenery.
To look this good in motion you`d need to wander in path tracing territory and on this level that is several generations away, the hardware power necessary for that is astronomical.
At best we can hope for the partial and heavily denoised RT implementations we have now to finally become standard on consoles replacing the prebaked lighting wherever possible---maybe even with more than just the handful of bounces we usually see and more than only 1-2 light sources being allowed to throw shadows per scene....

I didnt realize that demo is an offline render made using traditional CGi tools.

Interesting that its made of 22million triangles.

However they say this:

"And Omniverse Create’s camera animation feature allowed the artists to capture the final path-traced scene in real time, exactly as observed through the viewport"

So its being rendered in real time?

Let Me Shoyu How It’s Done: Creating the NVIDIA Omniverse Ramen Shop

More than 20 artists collaborate to cook up a stunning virtual restaurant using Adobe Substance 3D Painter, Adobe Substance Designer, Autodesk 3ds Max, Blender, Maxon Cinema 4D and ZBrush, SideFX Houdini and Omniverse Create.

blogs.nvidia.com

 

[Haggard]

So its being rendered in real time?

I don`t know the inner workings of the tool and the wording is ambiguous, "enabled by NVIDIA RTX-based ray tracing and path tracing."
If NVIDIA has proven one thing with their fantastic RT Denoiser and DLSS it is that they can cut corners in the background with a much less noticable impact on the result than one would think. I guess they`re doing the same here in some capacity. The marble demo comes to mind.

 

[Neilg]

Some of you are really bullish about stuff you don't know about.

Omniverse is fully real time. It's designed for design/enterprise needs and is cloud based. You may have seen in the article that shop has something like 3,000 4k textures. You're looking at a single environment that probably uses north of 30gb of assets.

The point of omniverse is that you don't need to optimise - just throw high detail assets in and it will scale to match. It's going to end up being a pretty solid guide as to where real time graphics can go, but home consoles and PC's may never have the memory to run that ramen shop (as part of a larger game) without optimizing in a way which seriously downgrades the overall look.