Graphical Fidelity I Expect This Gen

Haven't played it yet, but DS2 looks like one of the better games visually this gen overall, but it's clearly inconsistent and that is so easily fixable if they had just bothered to actually make use of better geometry tech and rtgi, ugh sony this gen is so disappointing, why can small devs team making their first game manage it, but not massive budget sony studios.
 

need to see more but so far it looks pretty much the same as RE8 both visually and gameplaywise, even in terms of level design
but with the RE7 director at the helm, there might still be some hope
 
Lighting is last generation stuff, all the talk of this being a showcase and this is what we get. PS5 guys will be blown away when they play HB2 (by the graphics I mean).

They won't — just like the media. HB2 is still one of the most visually impressive games of this generation, strictly in terms of graphics.
 
Played a couple of hours of death stranding 2 and man this is as last gen as it gets. This isnt even ps4.5 like demon souls or ratchet, this is like do spiderman 2 at best. The lighting is barely better than last gen. There are some decent looking ground level detail but everything else looks last gen at best. The foliage, the rocks and mountains, draw distance. Volumetric lighting effects. Everything.

jx4AJCxfVtBJpYee.jpeg


Cutscenes look a generation ahead. Phenomenal work here in terms of lighting and level of detail.

jWGgDzF3vZV4KvuG.jpeg
We all kinda suspected its gonna be like that, cutscenes character models are top notch coz we know that dev studio is capable of amazing things, they already proved it on last gens ps4 with ds1 character models, but in terms of overall graphic fidelity in gameplay hard to compete with hb2 when its 30fps and well below 1080p on series x while ds2 is 1440p60 on base ps5, thats easily over 4x amount of pixels "wasted" for image quality vs what hb2 did, and ofc something had to give, u know best it had to be this way, that 1440p resolution and 60fps made sure in gameplay graphical fidelity is relatively low.
If HB2 went for 1440p60 on series x it would look barely better from first hellblade...

Now another question is- how much of a game/gameplay we got in hb2, and we all can agreee not much, but since its next gen graphic fidelity thread i think hb2 obviously stays at the lead in everythging but characters in cutscenes, thats top notch in both games, personally i prefer DS2 but thats just subjective opinion on artistic take, techwise both games are a standard for current gen in this area(obviously gta6 gonna beat that, but thats in a year).
 
The devs didn't even upgraded sand and snow from fw, they left everything the same.

And people is mad when we call these fuckers lazy...

Fucking dune awakening and sw outlaws have better sand ffs...

I know nothing about the dune game, but I feel like it should have some pretty top tier sand considering.
That's the entire theme of the planet.
 
yeah, that ain't nice. Wonder what's wrong there; seems the engine is fucking up the draw-distance details at times for whatever reason. Aren't you even playing it on the Pro?

When everything chimes in perfectly, I think it's a beautiful-looking cross-gen game, though:

6C4JulruaOMceFc3.jpg

QuQh9V9R95ZMTN36.jpg

kIipfXk9p4FkPKJU.jpg
Those rocks are still ugly and lack proper shadowing.
 
DOOM: The Dark Ages with PT continues to impress. Still wouldn't say it dethrones any of the top games, but very visually pleasing throughout.

Few more shots:

dNGKimFO8QsPuuJe.png
B5M7a0r212Tf95OI.jpg
kaDGiFTo48edBJKh.png
MmaFuGvOXVxhNgoP.jpg
 
I know nothing about the dune game, but I feel like it should have some pretty top tier sand considering.
That's the entire theme of the planet.
A triple A with sony money behind should not lose in tech against a freakin funcom survival game...

Especially when the last iteration of their tech was in a 3 years old crossgen titles, people expected an evolution, exactly like kojima updated the water from zero dawn to ds1.
 
@ everyone here.

What does "Impressive" mean when you use it?

It should when discussing games refer to "impressive for the hardware it was developed for"......and yet It constantly seems to be used instead to showcase visuals that are either "Aestheticly pleasing to the individual" or as a way of celebrating the quality of the artists treatment of the assets to overcome hardware shortcomings. Non of which falls under "impressive for the hardware" which IMO is what the term has always implied. Especiall in threads like this dedicated to "graphic fidelity".
 
@ everyone here.

What does "Impressive" mean when you use it?

It should when discussing games refer to "impressive for the hardware it was developed for"......and yet It constantly seems to be used instead to showcase visuals that are either "Aestheticly pleasing to the individual" or as a way of celebrating the quality of the artists treatment of the assets to overcome hardware shortcomings. Non of which falls under "impressive for the hardware" which IMO is what the term has always implied. Especiall in threads like this dedicated to "graphic fidelity".
Impressive in this thread means impressive for current gen visuals, aka well above avg what ps5/xsx can produce currently.
Latest example- DS2 characters in cutscenes.
Edit: We can ofc use it in retrospective, aka killzone2 and motorstorm trailers were impressive af back in 2005 e3 sony pressconference, ofc they were fake too :D
 
Last edited:
@ everyone here.

What does "Impressive" mean when you use it?

It should when discussing games refer to "impressive for the hardware it was developed for"......and yet It constantly seems to be used instead to showcase visuals that are either "Aestheticly pleasing to the individual" or as a way of celebrating the quality of the artists treatment of the assets to overcome hardware shortcomings. Non of which falls under "impressive for the hardware" which IMO is what the term has always implied. Especiall in threads like this dedicated to "graphic fidelity".

I generally don't think about it that deeply. You kind of just intuitively know when something looks great, no?

With that said, I'm always looking for:
  • Lighting quality
  • Texture quality
  • Environment detail
  • General image clarity
  • Shadow quality
  • LOD
  • Character animations
  • Facial animations
  • HDR implementation
  • Cinematics
  • Performance
Sometimes a game might only impress on half of those points, but it still looks fantastic because of art direction or great baked lighting or some specific standout setpieces or something along those lines. Just depends on the game and our own personal preferences.


There's a variety of hardware at play depending on the user, whether it be entry level gaming PC, 4-5 year old super high end PC, newly built super high end PC, mid range PC, PS5, PS5 Pro, Xbox Series S, Switch 2, etc.. etc.. so it's hard to keep any kind of specific standard in that aspect.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom