GymWolf
Member
The hope for this gen was to have both tho.
-
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
arkhamguy123
Banned
How are we feeling about stellar blade?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
it never impressed me and i find beauty in uneven games like FF16, starfield and star wars jedi survivor. I feel like its a souped up cross gen game. i dislike the lighting, the asset quality, and overall screams of a B game.
I will give it another shot if it goes on sale. tried it on gamepass and quit after around 5 hours once i got to the big city.
that is weird. i wonder what is the limitation there. game uses like 3.5 gb vram at 1080p medium while retaining decent image quality
i'd say callisto at peak (ray tracing and higher res) definitely pushes the upper limit of crossgen. but I can't quite say nextgen for it
I'd agree with Flight Simulator
cyberpunk depends if you push ray tracing. if you don't, it is really lastgen imo. but phantom liberty without ray tracing can be considered nextgen because it has much better asset quality than base game.
avatar fits the gtx 1060 checklist. 1080p low and below 30 fps most of the time. requires 720p internal resolution to hit above 30 FPS
I will stick with the gtx 1060 imo, far more reliable.That GPU is a champion. Still rocks in 2024. FSR, althought not quite as good as DLSS, definitely helped a lot of people endure some more. People will probably mass jump to something like 12 GB 5060. 3060 and 4060 have been lackluster products imo
yeah but that callisto medium quality footage looks nothing like what i played. i think its medium in name only. that looks like the xbox one s version to me. complete dog shit. cant see any detail.
cyberpunk looks like this on base consoles. it looks like a completely different game on last gen consoles.
If the PS5 version looked like that we would call it the worst looking game of this gen. I think the quality mode on the PS5 uses FSR2 quality with rt shadows so 1440p 30 fps.
Hawking Radiation
Member
I've said at the start of this gen it's these types of gameplay enhancements I want over visual flair.
Games already look great, it's the physics that are lagging behind and it's this aspect of videogames that make the game world feel alive.
Realistic ragdoll effects
Realistic object destruction
Enemy movement and real time reaction to how the game world is changing
Weather and how it impacts the map (NPC's taking out umbrellas when it starts raining)
Realistic open world traffic. There should be a higher density of traffic in the middle of cities in the early morning and late afternoon.
Shit like this is what I'm looking for from games on PS6 and the next Xbox. If its more of the same we currently have with a nicer coat of paint I'm going to be VERY disappointed.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Member
It's gonna be ass.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
the recent footage had a huge downgrade. now it looks like a last gen game.
I think by that logic, Rise of the tomb raider which was ported to the xbox 360. witcher 3, doom 2016, hellblade, and most recently batman arkham knight which got ported to switch. they look like dog shit proving that anything can be downported as long as devs dont care what it looks like.
Call of duty Blops 3 in 2016 was a true next gen title that looked absolutely atrocious on the ps360. i think cyberpunk and callisto fit that bill more than Horizon FW which looks fairly decent on the base ps4.
Rendering native 4k compared to 1440p or 60 fps compared to 30 fps takes the same amount of GPU power. You are effectively doubling the pixel budget. You either render 2x more pixels or render them 2x more times every second. Same exact thing.
Things were slightly different in the ps4 gen because the jaguar CPU bottlenecks prevented them from cutting the 1080p resolutions by half and offering 720p 60 fps performance modes. I recently read that kojima wanted to make Death Stranding 60 fps on PS4. But now that the CPU bottleneck is gone, they are able to simply reduce the pixel load on the GPU by half to double the framerate. At the end of the day, you can have the most powerful CPU in the world, it's the GPU that has to do the rendering. Be it 60 fps or native 4k. And rendering double the pixels or double the frames takes away from rendering better lighting, geometry, foliage, character models etc.
thats fair. i go back and forth on demon souls and ratchet. they are both in my top ten for this gen. We both get hard every time we think about the Flamelurker area. Id even say ratchet looks better overall than star wars but it doesnt have the highs of Star wars and that goes back to Respawn using the 10 tflops PS5 gpu to render RT effects, way higher quality assets instead of using all 10 tflops to render native 4k pixels like ratchet did in its fidelity mode.
Ratchet just never looked this good even if it is far more consistent overall.
ckstine
Member
the alien bar in that game is genuinely insane to me. looks almost path traced with the way they did the baked gi
Yep, and the game is full of areas like that. It's mad to me to say that it can't be next gen because it's 4k, rather than the obvious response that it's an even more incredible achievement at that resolution. The most obvious test of its next gen-ness is surely how it looks compared to the 2016 game, and it completely blows that away.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
the alien bar is one room. jedi survivor has like four entire bases that look that good.
i was thinking of the factory level in blizar prime. it looked good but not this good. asset quality and lighting is way higher in these star wars levels.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Nothing looks as good in SW as Negarious City!
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Point is that it could look way better if they werent wasting the GPU on rendering 4k pixels. Ratchet is using rt reflections, but star wars is using RTGI and RT reflections. it's also using way higher quality assets and levels are generally bigger. it's open world looks pretty bad but ratchet's open world isnt a looker either.
Spiderman 2 also looks way better than Spiderman 2018 on PS4. It's a huge leap, but then you compare it Cyberpunk and there are several aspects where it just doesnt measure up. Building quality, lighting, and overall asset quality simply lags behind cyberpunk.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I went back to play it late last year and while it looked really good i feel like its been topped since.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
yeah, like i said, ratchet looks better overall. the open world levels in star wars dont look as good as the imperial bases, but the lighting saves them there as well. you will be exploring a very ps4 looking open world area and all of a sudden you go into a random cave and the volumetric lighting there just elevates it a bit.
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
Sometimes reading this thread I wonder if some here can still enjoy and appreciate a more stylized, cartoony artstyle. For example anime games like Persona 3 reload, Guilty Gear Strive, HiFi Rush, bomb rush cyberfunk. These games get my joy juices glowing just as much as Avatar and Hellblade 2. Don't get me wrong it's a different kind of appreciation and I so badly want to have my socks blown off too. The only games to knock my socks off this gen (on console) has been Demon's Souls, Ratchet, and Avatar.
Obviously it's true that it could look way better at 1440p30 - it just seems odd to concentrate on excess pixels more than the actual visuals achieved.
I think SM2 suffers more from being built on the first game's city than the actual resolution. Some of the areas specially made for the game - Coney Island comes to mind - impressed me as much as anything this gen.
But yeah, if you don't mind playing at 30fps, then 4k is definitely more than you need for good IQ.
yamaci17
Member
open world looks good at times
but then some times foliage look atrocious
its a mixed feelings game on graphics department
ratchet clank... i'd say has better asset quality than jedi survivor. but then again ratchet clank lends on to be more atmospheric. they crafted cool worlds with background details being crafted with hand in the distance. so it looks cool. it is a neat trick. some games do not use such tricks and jedi survivor is one
because in jedi survivor what you see, you can get there pretty much. which in turn makes everything look lower quality as they seem. in ratchet you cant go that blue ad building you see in the distance or those cool vistas
when will jedi survivor hit ea play. i want to replay but dont want to pay for ea play pro again. above screenshots are with 4k fsr balanced or performance or quality idk random. dlss would fare better, now that the game has DLSS. I will definitely be taking more pics in replay
ResetEraVetVIP
Member
Yes, It’s not about realism. It’s about fidelity.
yamaci17
Member
i enjoyed psychonauts 2 visuals a lot
i mean within the art style scope, it actually looks good !
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
what the hell is going on with the foliage in your second screenshot. i actually think the forest areas in koboh look great. its the desert areas in koboh such as that first screenshot area look extremely mediocre even by last gen standards. its almost like they forgot to do a second pass on lighting and textures. just looks incomplete.open world looks good at times
but then some times foliage look atrocious
its a mixed feelings game on graphics department
ratchet clank... i'd say has better asset quality than jedi survivor. but then again ratchet clank lends on to be more atmospheric. they crafted cool worlds with background details being crafted with hand in the distance. so it looks cool. it is a neat trick. some games do not use such tricks and jedi survivor is one
because in jedi survivor what you see, you can get there pretty much. which in turn makes everything look lower quality as they seem. in ratchet you cant go that blue ad building you see in the distance or those cool vistas
when will jedi survivor hit ea play. i want to replay but dont want to pay for ea play pro again. above screenshots are with 4k fsr balanced or performance or quality idk random. dlss would fare better, now that the game has DLSS. I will definitely be taking more pics in replay
corosuant always looked better to me compared to ratchet. like you said, its far bigger in scope and doesnt feel like small disjointed rooms stiched together like nefarious city does.
I think you will like it a lot more with dlss quality. i was able to get 40 fps locked everywhere. in koboh, on linear imperial bases, corosaunt, and even the desert planet that was crashing for everyone at launch. That too at epic settings with ray tracing on at 4k dlss quality. I got sick of waiting for it to go ea play and just bought it from the epic store for only $22. only had around 6-8 hours left in the story which i finished today but im glad i bought it so i can go back to it any time. your 3070 can probably do it at high settings, but the game is very cpu heavy with rt on.
Last edited:
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
This is why it looks better than Ratchet to you and worse to me. You're on a 3080 and I'm comparing PS5. This thread gets confusing often due to the nature of PC>console disparity. I can see how Ultra settings plus a higher resolution at 40 fps could be more impressive looking, easily, than Ratchet at 4k/30 on PS5. SW on ps5 in fidelity probably has worse lods, shadow quality and is a little muddy in comparison. It can still look great in in linear city environs but I reckon its a big difference still. It's like Alan Wake 2 and how a fair few of us will take LoU2 remastered over it even though PC version easily beats LoU2.
ckstine
Member
yeah, and the rtgi is decent imo. tbh good gi is probably the best thing for visuals outside of asset quality.
Balducci30
Member
Jedi Survivor is underrated graphically imo. There are moments it looks right up there with the best of them - even surpasses many. I think it actually looks better than Ff16
Balducci30
Member
Also - I’m playing through LOU 2 remastered. In many ways it holds up. Naughty dog are on another level with details in the world. One thing I’m noticing though is the skin on the characters looks sort of unnatural compared to the best PS5 games - I don’t know if it’s the lighting or what but it looks kinda flat? Dunno if I’m explaining that right
SimTourist
Member
I don't know what you're seeing here, it's very simple angular geometry, very easy to render, take the Force Unleashed 2 it will look the same.Ratchet just never looked this good even if it is far more consistent overall.
I can attest to mine eyes SW looked significantly better @4k DLAA than DLSS Quality.open world looks good at times
but then some times foliage look atrocious
its a mixed feelings game on graphics department
ratchet clank... i'd say has better asset quality than jedi survivor. but then again ratchet clank lends on to be more atmospheric. they crafted cool worlds with background details being crafted with hand in the distance. so it looks cool. it is a neat trick. some games do not use such tricks and jedi survivor is one
because in jedi survivor what you see, you can get there pretty much. which in turn makes everything look lower quality as they seem. in ratchet you cant go that blue ad building you see in the distance or those cool vistas
when will jedi survivor hit ea play. i want to replay but dont want to pay for ea play pro again. above screenshots are with 4k fsr balanced or performance or quality idk random. dlss would fare better, now that the game has DLSS. I will definitely be taking more pics in replay
GymWolf
Member
No they don't.
UchihaMadara
Neo Member
It's kind of interesting that when i watched GTA 6 trailer for the first time i was impressed immensely. For me it was holy shit moment. It looked insane tbh. But after Death Stranding 2 trailer i watched GTA 6 again and I noticed how cartoonish those characters look compared to DS2.
mrMUR_96
Member
SM2 just feels very rushed and unfinished graphically imo, very inconsistent.
They also managed to completely fuck up the first impression by covering large parts of the city in ugly, largely undynamic sand. What were they thinking.
Team Andromeda
Member
Spot on the game looks amazing and the game is also brilliant. It was my GOTY last year.
Audiophile
Member
Gotta agree, that part looks absolutely awful.
Team Andromeda
Member
FORZA gets so much hate but I think its the best looking driving game around the lighting is amazing and lost how even miss drops are lit and the ray traced refections are silly ace
Also like the graphics in the likes of these
Also like the graphics in the likes of these
arkhamguy123
Banned
Disagree as the switch is more powerful than the PS360 and I don’t consider those cross gen 360/Xbox one games next gen (at the time) like rise of the tomb raider and black ops 3. Hell even black ops 4 looks like a damn 1080p 360 game so I don’t think those are good examples.the recent footage had a huge downgrade. now it looks like a last gen game.
I think by that logic, Rise of the tomb raider which was ported to the xbox 360. witcher 3, doom 2016, hellblade, and most recently batman arkham knight which got ported to switch. they look like dog shit proving that anything can be downported as long as devs dont care what it looks like.
Call of duty Blops 3 in 2016 was a true next gen title that looked absolutely atrocious on the ps360. i think cyberpunk and callisto fit that bill more than Horizon FW which looks fairly decent on the base ps4.
Basically I see what you’re saying, I do, but I still reject Callisto or cyberpunk as next gen worthy games. Simply by the fact that they are not next gen
Last edited:
That appearance in GTA 6 is completely intentional because they don't focus only on characters and terrain rendering. They implement many other systems into their Rage engine and with a level of fidelity and care that is completely impossible to achieve by any other company.
DS2 looks absolutely stunning, but on a technical level it's not going to be comparable to GTA 6.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
How accurate is this picture?
I’ve played Silent Hill 3 and it’s still a looker
It’s Starfield at its worst. During gameplay with a character that is not part of the plot (lower quality) in the city under something that casts shadow or something (no lighting features). And SH3 is during a cutscene with a main plot character..
So accurate but a bit of trolling
Last edited:
ckstine
Member
in gameplay, tho, sh3 still looks better. the only good part of SF is the interiors. everything else EVERYTHING ELSE looks shit
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
I mean they both potentially are using RT gi, both rendering dense geometry, DS2 has some of the best character rendering...I wouldn't downplay DS2 they will both be top tier for tech though yeah Gta6 will be S+ tier
Feel Like I'm On 42
Member
The fuck you on about? Starfield gas some incredibly nice looking scenes not just indoors but outdoors..Mars for example looks amazing
ckstine
Member
didn't you defend forspoken the other day?
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Naw that's rose tinted memories. Even nowadays at HD res (not PS2...) it's gameplay models show its age. Comical animations too. And most of the gameplay you're top down view or far away, not zooming on the face. Anything close is cutscenes most of the time.
This is old-man PS2 gameplay model
I have a lot of bad things to say about Starfield but let's not exaggerate. The outside environment big city NPCs are downgraded from their interior counterpart and everyone is meme'ing on that but
Lighting in an open world with day & night cycle with no hero lighting on every NPC will also result in funny fuck ups.
While you can stumble on this random NPC which looks fine (again lighting)
But even outside it can be alright after update
But hey, it's not as funny as internet memes wanting the twitch crowd LOLs. Like I said, "accurate" but that image is trolling.
ckstine
Member
it's not fair to say oh it's only the lighting, it's part of the game. It's like saying "this movie is perfect except all the shittyness" sh3 has literally higher resolution shadows.Naw that's rose tinted memories. Even nowadays at HD res (not PS2...) it's gameplay models show its age. Comical animations too. And most of the gameplay you're top down view or far away, not zooming on the face. Anything close is cutscenes most of the time.
This is old-man PS2 gameplay model
I have a lot of bad things to say about Starfield but let's not exaggerate. The outside environment big city NPCs are downgraded from their interior counterpart and everyone is meme'ing on that but
Lighting in an open world with day & night cycle with no hero lighting on every NPC will also result in funny fuck ups.
While you can stumble on this random NPC which looks fine (again lighting)
But even outside it can be alright after update
But hey, it's not as funny as internet memes wanting the twitch crowd LOLs. Like I said, "accurate" but that image is trolling.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
The tesselation for one. Every object feels like it has depth to it. Even games like battlefront 2 didnt have asset quality like this, let alone a 360 era game like Force Unleashed 2. Add in the lighting and reflections and its a massive leap over Battlefront 2 which i played late last year because people here kept saying how it looks better, but nah it has its own drawbacks.
Take the gif below. You have incredible lighting that approaches Cyberpunk quality in this specific scene, but the assets dont look like they blend in with the walls. Every pipe, wire and fan looks like it is its own 3d object. Forget PS360 era games like Force Unleased, even Battlefront 2 and TLOU2 dont have asset quality like this. This is actually the biggest complaint i had with Spiderman 2's buildings. they look flat like every single building or wall in pretty much every single ps4 era game.
Star Wars, Callisto and especially Starfield dont have this issue because everything feels like its own unique model.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Not accurate because that must be low settings or series s footage.
Main character models look even better.
Their skin shaders are very weak during gameplay. It's my biggest issue with ND games. Other games dont have this issue. Well, until now with FF7 Rebirth where Cloud looks worse than he did on PS4.
yamaci17
Member
I don't really care. Problem with Starfield is not its graphics anyways. No need to move the goalposts, I replied because of that horrible NPC shot being shared.
Skyrim looked almost a gen behind than RDR 1 but no one cared back then because game was actually GOTY tier. Starfield is simply not good. Had it been a good game, it would probably break the internet like Skyrim did. Maybe the reason the game sucks so much is because they wanted to cater so much to the graphics people and forgot to make the game actually good in the process
you still don't have complex physics Starfield has with horizon. you cannot build mining colony outposts that contains hundreds of unique assets, buildings and systems that you can place, build and construct one by one. such a game will always lag behind in graphics department. the fact that it looks this good despite retaining all those mechanics and physics is just a testament to bethesda graphics team. it is just that this time game did not clicked with people.
starfield or skyrim or any bethesda games have mods that can completely add new content, quests, buildings, storylines, entirely made up stuff from just using the engine resources itself. while all you can do with horizon zero dawn on PC is... idk what? same for horizon forbidden west.
they're just built different.
also look at something like elden ring, which is in technical terms reeks early ps4 gen in terms of graphics. but yeah, horizon forbidden west couldn't even hold a candle to that game. and no one cared if elden ring looked multiple times worse than horizon forbidden west. because in the end, for elden ring, it didn't matter. elden ring doesn't sell you graphics. it sells you cool bosses and soulslike experience in an open world setting. Starfield also doesn't sell graphics but it just so happens that they overachieved themselves at least in graphics departments. Skyrim didn't sell graphics, it sold an immersive world where you can explore and do whatever you want in a fantasy setting. Starfield is just tries to be a wonky galaxy simulator which horribly backfired on them
the reason im telling you is because if starfield could've been succesful like elden ring, in other words, be good at what it is supposed to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, just like how i never see elden ring being talked here
Skyrim looked almost a gen behind than RDR 1 but no one cared back then because game was actually GOTY tier. Starfield is simply not good. Had it been a good game, it would probably break the internet like Skyrim did. Maybe the reason the game sucks so much is because they wanted to cater so much to the graphics people and forgot to make the game actually good in the process
you still don't have complex physics Starfield has with horizon. you cannot build mining colony outposts that contains hundreds of unique assets, buildings and systems that you can place, build and construct one by one. such a game will always lag behind in graphics department. the fact that it looks this good despite retaining all those mechanics and physics is just a testament to bethesda graphics team. it is just that this time game did not clicked with people.
starfield or skyrim or any bethesda games have mods that can completely add new content, quests, buildings, storylines, entirely made up stuff from just using the engine resources itself. while all you can do with horizon zero dawn on PC is... idk what? same for horizon forbidden west.
they're just built different.
also look at something like elden ring, which is in technical terms reeks early ps4 gen in terms of graphics. but yeah, horizon forbidden west couldn't even hold a candle to that game. and no one cared if elden ring looked multiple times worse than horizon forbidden west. because in the end, for elden ring, it didn't matter. elden ring doesn't sell you graphics. it sells you cool bosses and soulslike experience in an open world setting. Starfield also doesn't sell graphics but it just so happens that they overachieved themselves at least in graphics departments. Skyrim didn't sell graphics, it sold an immersive world where you can explore and do whatever you want in a fantasy setting. Starfield is just tries to be a wonky galaxy simulator which horribly backfired on them
the reason im telling you is because if starfield could've been succesful like elden ring, in other words, be good at what it is supposed to do, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, just like how i never see elden ring being talked here
Last edited: