Is Infamous: Second Son the Best Looking Game Ever?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#951 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (16385 posts) -

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

#952 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6695 posts) -

@DarthRamms said:

@m3dude1:

"good to know you think the difference between crysis 3 on consoles and pc is the expected graphical jump between console generations."

care to provide evidence of that?

and right not any noticeable difference with tessellation huh like the vegetation or etc right ?

http://www.tweakguides.com/38_c3_mergedmeshinstdist_comparison.html

http://www.tweakguides.com/35_c3_lodratio_comparison.html

Wow that was really cool, do you have more of those?

#953 Edited by Mozelleple112 (6695 posts) -

Now that's some next gen graphics right there

#954 Posted by NFJSupreme (5379 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@NFJSupreme said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@kalipekona said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Geometry is the same.

A rock that uses all of 10 polygons. That's the next gen experience folks.

Give me a break. Infamous Second Son is even blockier in the way it models objects.

First of all, you act like geometry is what defines "next gen" and I already showed why that is an absurd attitude to have. I also showed that Crysis 3 does have provably more geometry in the PC version than the console versions anyway.

All it comes down to is this: Crysis 3 is a graphically superior game compared to Infamous Second Son. All this talk of "true next gen" is bogus and doesn't change that fact.

So what defines next gen? What is fundamental is geometry isn't?

more advanced lighting, particle effects, physics, cleaner AA, and higher resolution all come into play too.

AA and resolution are not a next gen asset. If I increase the resolution of an N64 emulator to 4k and AA, is it superior to Infamous SS?

no but higher resolution is a benefit of next gen hardware. All part of the next gen experience

#955 Edited by highking_kallor (524 posts) -

@bloodytides:

Paging all morons

#956 Edited by kalipekona (2299 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:
@kalipekona said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Geometry is the same.

A rock that uses all of 10 polygons. That's the next gen experience folks.

Give me a break. Infamous Second Son is even blockier in the way it models objects.

First of all, you act like geometry is what defines "next gen" and I already showed why that is an absurd attitude to have. I also showed that Crysis 3 does have provably more geometry in the PC version than the console versions anyway.

All it comes down to is this: Crysis 3 is a graphically superior game compared to Infamous Second Son. All this talk of "true next gen" is bogus and doesn't change that fact.

So what defines next gen? What is fundamental if geometry isn't?

"Next-gen" is just a buzz word. That's why I was putting it in quotes in my other comments. At best it just refers to the kind of visuals we expect to see from a new generation of console hardware.

What creates those kinds of outstanding visuals? Any combination of an assortment of graphical techniques. There is no "fundamental" graphical element, they're all important.

The graphics techniques used will depend on the game, of course. There isn't just one path to amazing graphics.

The other thing you guys are confused about is this assumption you have that an open world game automatically renders more than a "linear" game, and this simply isn't true. From a rendering perspective it isn't a question of how linear or open the path through the game world is, it's a matter of draw distance and the quality of the elements being rendered on screen. If one game features a huge open world but it has aggressive LOD changes on the geometry, textures, etc. a certain distance from the camera then it can easily be rendering less in any given scene than a so-called "linear" game with a long draw distance and higher quality LOD at any given distance.

#957 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

#958 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -
@jun_aka_pekto said:

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

That looks insane.

#959 Posted by RyviusARC (4615 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

#960 Posted by Merex760 (4328 posts) -

If you pretend PC doesn't exist, I guess you could call it the best looking game ever?

#961 Edited by RyviusARC (4615 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:
@jun_aka_pekto said:

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

That looks insane.

It look alright but the LOD is not that great.

Compared to the PS3 it is but not when compared to the PC.

It's not that hard to make things look decent from far away since it is harder to notice minute details so you can get away with very low LOD.

#962 Edited by GameFan1983 (2169 posts) -
@jun_aka_pekto said:

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

If that album is anything to go by, then infamous definitely has the most solid all around graphic out there. you just convinced me to buy a PS4 this weekend, good grief

edit: looks like the new screenshot function from ps4 really upset a lot pc gamers.

#963 Edited by kalipekona (2299 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

--More nonsense. It isn't any more primary than perhaps a dozen graphical elements that improve from generation to generation. And you're being dishonest about what I said. I never said Crysis 3 looks better because of a few "next gen effects". I showed that the PC version of Crysis 3 is superior to the console versions in nearly every aspect that matters to real-time graphics, including geometry, textures, shaders, lighting quality, post process effects, shadow quality, draw distance, LOD, shading (SSAO), particle effects, and more.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

To begin with, most of those things you listed are not typically considered "effects". But I know it is convenient for your argument to label them as such because you want to pretend that all those graphical elements are just "effects" sprinkled on top of the true "core" graphics. Well, this is a false delineation. All of those aspects of real-time graphics can be important depending on the game and its overall visual design.

The truth is, in a lot of ways we are reaching a point of diminishing returns when it comes to polygon counts. I mean, sure, adding more polygons to a character or environment still does produce a more detailed, pleasing image, but the result of doing so is generally becoming less dramatic and impactful.

Let's do a different thought experiment. Say we take Infamous 2 and we make two enhanced "next gen" versions of the game. For the first enhanced version we keep all of the geometry the same, but we add much higher resolution textures, higher quality particle effects, a more accurate lighting engine, bokeh DoF, more advanced shaders, screen space reflections, better shading with HBAO+, and maybe a few other "effects" . For the second enhanced version we keep all aspects of the visual design the same, except we overhaul all the geometry by adding more polygons to every object and character in the game.

Now according to you people should pick the second version as being more "next gen" since it has the supremely important "fundamental" geometry improvement that you claim defines a true "next gen" game. After all, the other version just has a few "effects" sprinkled on top of an obvious last gen game. But...what would actually happen is that many people would struggle to notice a significant difference between the original PS3 version and the polygonally enhanced "next gen" version.

On the other hand, the vast majority of people would instantly recognize the first version as being a significant leap above the PS3 version. Indeed, it would look "next gen" to most people. Only the more discriminating of us would be likely to point out the lack of improvement in the geometry.

Polygon count is only one element among many that contribute to how good we perceive a game's graphics to be.

Another good example to illustrate this point is the recent Tomb Raider Definitive Edition. Many people consider this to be the best looking game on the PS4. In fact, there were a few people in this very thread that said as much. And I'm inclined to agree with them. If it's not the best looking game on PS4 it's damn close. But, wait, this is just another last gen game with a few effects sprinkled on top, right? Bzzt! Wrong! It doesn't matter that a lot of the underlying geometry is the same as the last gen versions because the geometry was already generally sufficient and the improvements in other areas are so much more important to the impact of the game's visuals.

#964 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

Yes, generation is a word used for consoles. But PC games are largely console ports with no change to the core code at all. Doom 3 on PC showcased a lot of graphical assets that would later be in early PS3/360 games, that improved upon over the years. Doom 3 on PC features better resolution, lighting, textures, effects, bump maps and face maps than the Xbox version, but the polygons were created with the original Xbox in mind. It's a 6th gen game and it shows by the low polygon count alone even on PC. In fact it's pretty much the same situation as Crysis 3, 7th gen mesh, except there is more additional effects added on because, well, there is more effects nowadays than back in 2004.

In order to get Infamous SS to run on the PS3, the character models would have to be decreased in geometry, animations would be cut down as there would be a lack of polygons around the mouth and eyes, animations seem to be a primary advancement of 8th gen, just look at Ryse and Killzone SF. The particle effects would literally have to be recreated with drastically cut down technology. All of this is far more work than lowering texture resolution, shadows, tessellation, lighting, because all of those things are just overlays that can be toggled on and off, unlike character polygons, object polygons, geometry, animations etc. It would be time and money to change the code of the game for different platforms, and they are certinally not going to invest in changing those fundamental things for the enthusiast gaming PC market. Cevat Yerli says all that here:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cryteks-ceo-admits-that-crysis-3-was-limited-by-current-generation-consoles/

“The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It’s impossible not to limited by a limited console. By definition it’s the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes.”
“Could we have afforded a budge to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take.”

Why would he even say these things at all if it's a fully next gen game with no compromises? Because most of a games budget is in game design (characters, models, objects, artists, animations) which is why they are the fundamental assets, and all of which are exactly the same on the PS3/360. Not effects that are already present in the engine. You can add those effects for free with Cry Engine 3 editor. Look at what modders do for free for example. The next gen effects seen in Crysis 3 PC is what was already in Cryengine 3. Those same effects could be applied to a PS1 game mesh if they wanted. That PS1 game would indeed have 8th gen effects, but it's not next gen. A consistent difference between generations is also game size, that's because the core code of the game is more advanced throughout every generation. To say adding on lots of advanced stuff makes it just as next gen is ludicrous. Disagreements are inevitable with you lot of course.

#965 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

@kalipekona said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

--More nonsense. It isn't any more primary than perhaps a dozen graphical elements that improve from generation to generation. And you're being dishonest about what I said. I never said Crysis 3 looks better because of a few "next gen effects". I showed that the PC version of Crysis 3 is superior to the console versions in nearly every aspect that matters to real-time graphics, including geometry, textures, shaders, lighting quality, post process effects, shadow quality, draw distance, LOD, shading (SSAO), particle effects, and more.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

To begin with, most of those things you listed are not typically considered "effects". But I know it is convenient for your argument to label them as such because you want to pretend that all those graphical elements are just "effects" sprinkled on top of the true "core" graphics. Well, this is a false delineation. All of those aspects of real-time graphics can be important depending on the game and its overall visual design.

The truth is, in a lot of ways we are reaching a point of diminishing returns when it comes to polygon counts. I mean, sure, adding more polygons to a character or environment still does produce a more detailed, pleasing image, but the result of doing so is generally becoming less dramatic and impactful.

Let's do a different thought experiment. Say we take Infamous 2 and we make two enhanced "next gen" versions of the game. For the first enhanced version we keep all of the geometry the same, but we add much higher resolution textures, higher quality particle effects, a more accurate lighting engine, bokeh DoF, more advanced shaders, screen space reflections, better shading with HBAO+, and maybe a few other "effects" . For the second enhanced version we keep all aspects of the visual design the same, except we overhaul all the geometry by adding more polygons to every object and character in the game.

Now according to you people should pick the second version as being more "next gen" since it has the supremely important "fundamental" geometry improvement that you claim defines a true "next gen" game. After all, the other version just has a few "effects" sprinkled on top of an obvious last gen game. But...what would actually happen is that many people would struggle to notice a significant difference between the original PS3 version and the polygonally enhanced "next gen" version.

On the other hand, the vast majority of people would instantly recognize the first version as being a significant leap above the PS3 version. Indeed, it would look "next gen" to most people. Only the more discriminating of us would be likely to point out the lack of improvement in the geometry.

Polygon count is only one element among many that contribute to how good we perceive a game's graphics to be.

Another good example to illustrate this point is the recent Tomb Raider Definitive Edition. Many people consider this to be the best looking game on the PS4. In fact, there were a few people in this very thread that said as much. And I'm inclined to agree with them. If it's not the best looking game on PS4 it's damn close. But, wait, this is just another last gen game with a few effects sprinkled on top, right? Bzzt! Wrong! It doesn't matter that a lot of the underlying geometry is the same as the last gen versions because the geometry was already generally sufficient and the improvements in other areas are so much more important to the impact of the game's visuals.

Haha, what you are saying actually has so much logic that it is hard to argue with it. Kudos to you. However I never said that improving geometry alone makes the game look better. Diminishing returns dictates this as it's getting harder to distinguish polygons now. Obviously advancing the core game alone will not result in the average person saying "Next gen grafs right there", but having the attitude that 7th gen geometry is enough means we will never improve. After all, details is all the future of graphics will be from now on. I agree that everything should be an improvement to be called next gen, not just polygon count.

But listen, my argument from the start is that Infamous SS is a next gen game. It doesn't matter if some PC game somewhere has higher res textures or what ever. There are improvements made to ISS that leave any game of it's kind in the dust. It isn't comparable to Crysis 3 anyway as both games have different focus points. The point is that Infamous Second Son is the next gen of it's genre and does just about everything significantly better than last gen games of it's type. On this basis, it's next gen.

#966 Posted by MK-Professor (3828 posts) -

Best Looking Game Ever? LOL not even close (if you ask me it looks rather bad), then again I am used to play my games at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings.

#967 Edited by RyviusARC (4615 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

Yes, generation is a word used for consoles. But PC games are largely console ports with no change to the core code at all. Doom 3 on PC showcased a lot of graphical assets that would later be in early PS3/360 games, that improved upon over the years. Doom 3 on PC features better resolution, lighting, textures, effects, bump maps and face maps than the Xbox version, but the polygons were created with the original Xbox in mind. It's a 6th gen game and it shows by the low polygon count alone even on PC. In fact it's pretty much the same situation as Crysis 3, 7th gen mesh, except there is more additional effects added on because, well, there is more effects nowadays than back in 2004.

In order to get Infamous SS to run on the PS3, the character models would have to be decreased in geometry, animations would be cut down as there would be a lack of polygons around the mouth and eyes, animations seem to be a primary advancement of 8th gen, just look at Ryse and Killzone SF. The particle effects would literally have to be recreated with drastically cut down technology. All of this is far more work than lowering texture resolution, shadows, tessellation, lighting, because all of those things are just overlays that can be toggled on and off, unlike character polygons, object polygons, geometry, animations etc. It would be time and money to change the code of the game for different platforms, and they are certinally not going to invest in changing those fundamental things for the enthusiast gaming PC market. Cevat Yerli says all that here:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cryteks-ceo-admits-that-crysis-3-was-limited-by-current-generation-consoles/

“The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It’s impossible not to limited by a limited console. By definition it’s the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes.”
“Could we have afforded a budge to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take.”

Why would he even say these things at all if it's a fully next gen game with no compromises? Because most of a games budget is in game design (characters, models, objects, artists, animations) which is why they are the fundamental assets, and all of which are exactly the same on the PS3/360. Not effects that are already present in the engine. You can add those effects for free with Cry Engine 3 editor. Look at what modders do for free for example. The next gen effects seen in Crysis 3 PC is what was already in Cryengine 3. Those same effects could be applied to a PS1 game mesh if they wanted. That PS1 game would indeed have 8th gen effects, but it's not next gen. A consistent difference between generations is also game size, that's because the core code of the game is more advanced throughout every generation. To say adding on lots of advanced stuff makes it just as next gen is ludicrous. Disagreements are inevitable with you lot of course.

Actually it looks like Doom 3 on the Xbox had lower poly models.

They also had to cut the level sizes to smaller parts.

It was a huge difference visually even the lowest PC settings looked a lot better than the Xbox version.

#968 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (16385 posts) -

From what I can gather with all these posts, There are many individual PC games, each with an outstanding element. But, it seems to me ISS just happens to combine those elements. Sure, it has warts. But, so do those PC games.

If I was a lawyer defending a claim for graphics king, I'd have an easier time defending ISS than the other games. That's just me though.

#969 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

Yes, generation is a word used for consoles. But PC games are largely console ports with no change to the core code at all. Doom 3 on PC showcased a lot of graphical assets that would later be in early PS3/360 games, that improved upon over the years. Doom 3 on PC features better resolution, lighting, textures, effects, bump maps and face maps than the Xbox version, but the polygons were created with the original Xbox in mind. It's a 6th gen game and it shows by the low polygon count alone even on PC. In fact it's pretty much the same situation as Crysis 3, 7th gen mesh, except there is more additional effects added on because, well, there is more effects nowadays than back in 2004.

In order to get Infamous SS to run on the PS3, the character models would have to be decreased in geometry, animations would be cut down as there would be a lack of polygons around the mouth and eyes, animations seem to be a primary advancement of 8th gen, just look at Ryse and Killzone SF. The particle effects would literally have to be recreated with drastically cut down technology. All of this is far more work than lowering texture resolution, shadows, tessellation, lighting, because all of those things are just overlays that can be toggled on and off, unlike character polygons, object polygons, geometry, animations etc. It would be time and money to change the code of the game for different platforms, and they are certinally not going to invest in changing those fundamental things for the enthusiast gaming PC market. Cevat Yerli says all that here:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cryteks-ceo-admits-that-crysis-3-was-limited-by-current-generation-consoles/

“The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It’s impossible not to limited by a limited console. By definition it’s the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes.”
“Could we have afforded a budge to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take.”

Why would he even say these things at all if it's a fully next gen game with no compromises? Because most of a games budget is in game design (characters, models, objects, artists, animations) which is why they are the fundamental assets, and all of which are exactly the same on the PS3/360. Not effects that are already present in the engine. You can add those effects for free with Cry Engine 3 editor. Look at what modders do for free for example. The next gen effects seen in Crysis 3 PC is what was already in Cryengine 3. Those same effects could be applied to a PS1 game mesh if they wanted. That PS1 game would indeed have 8th gen effects, but it's not next gen. A consistent difference between generations is also game size, that's because the core code of the game is more advanced throughout every generation. To say adding on lots of advanced stuff makes it just as next gen is ludicrous. Disagreements are inevitable with you lot of course.

Actually it looks like Doom 3 on the Xbox had lower poly models.

They also had to cut the level sizes to smaller parts.

It was a huge difference visually even the lowest PC settings looked a lot better than the Xbox version.

Worse resolution, lighting, effects, textures, bump maps. Same polygons, however, notice that there are wires missing in the Xbox version. That could be classed as geometry, but it's not proper geometry as it is flat with no volume. But yes there are cut level sequences, but that's just a case of taking them out to save resources.

#970 Posted by MWright469 (151 posts) -

Killzone 3 still looks better.

#971 Edited by TheFadeForever (1832 posts) -

far as I can see from experience there are aspect of the game that are very good like thecharacter model and particles. As for certain things like the LOD not very much.

#972 Edited by Mozelleple112 (6695 posts) -

@MK-Professor said:

Best Looking Game Ever? LOL not even close (if you ask me it looks rather bad), then again I am used to play my games at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings.

That's a whole load of bull. Even if you do play all your games at 1440p, max settings and 60 fps (which requires a beastly rig and frequent upgrades to constantly provide throughout a generation) Infamous: SS doesn't look bad at all. Its easily comparable with the best looking PC games, just not definitively better than Crysis 3, modded GTA IV, Metro: LL etc. You could play those games @ 4096x2160p and still find Infamous good looking.

#973 Posted by MK-Professor (3828 posts) -

@Mozelleple112 said:

@MK-Professor said:

Best Looking Game Ever? LOL not even close (if you ask me it looks rather bad), then again I am used to play my games at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings.

That's a whole load of bull. Even if you do play all your games at 1440p, max settings and 60 fps (which requires a beastly rig and frequent upgrades to constantly provide throughout a generation) Infamous: SS doesn't look bad at all. Its easily comparable with the best looking PC games, just not definitively better than Crysis 3, modded GTA IV, Metro: LL etc. You could play those games @ 4096x2160p and still find Infamous good looking.

When your eye is used to 2560x1440 & 60fps something like 1080p & 30fps will not cut it anymore.

#974 Posted by RyviusARC (4615 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

Yes, generation is a word used for consoles. But PC games are largely console ports with no change to the core code at all. Doom 3 on PC showcased a lot of graphical assets that would later be in early PS3/360 games, that improved upon over the years. Doom 3 on PC features better resolution, lighting, textures, effects, bump maps and face maps than the Xbox version, but the polygons were created with the original Xbox in mind. It's a 6th gen game and it shows by the low polygon count alone even on PC. In fact it's pretty much the same situation as Crysis 3, 7th gen mesh, except there is more additional effects added on because, well, there is more effects nowadays than back in 2004.

In order to get Infamous SS to run on the PS3, the character models would have to be decreased in geometry, animations would be cut down as there would be a lack of polygons around the mouth and eyes, animations seem to be a primary advancement of 8th gen, just look at Ryse and Killzone SF. The particle effects would literally have to be recreated with drastically cut down technology. All of this is far more work than lowering texture resolution, shadows, tessellation, lighting, because all of those things are just overlays that can be toggled on and off, unlike character polygons, object polygons, geometry, animations etc. It would be time and money to change the code of the game for different platforms, and they are certinally not going to invest in changing those fundamental things for the enthusiast gaming PC market. Cevat Yerli says all that here:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cryteks-ceo-admits-that-crysis-3-was-limited-by-current-generation-consoles/

“The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It’s impossible not to limited by a limited console. By definition it’s the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes.”
“Could we have afforded a budge to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take.”

Why would he even say these things at all if it's a fully next gen game with no compromises? Because most of a games budget is in game design (characters, models, objects, artists, animations) which is why they are the fundamental assets, and all of which are exactly the same on the PS3/360. Not effects that are already present in the engine. You can add those effects for free with Cry Engine 3 editor. Look at what modders do for free for example. The next gen effects seen in Crysis 3 PC is what was already in Cryengine 3. Those same effects could be applied to a PS1 game mesh if they wanted. That PS1 game would indeed have 8th gen effects, but it's not next gen. A consistent difference between generations is also game size, that's because the core code of the game is more advanced throughout every generation. To say adding on lots of advanced stuff makes it just as next gen is ludicrous. Disagreements are inevitable with you lot of course.

Actually it looks like Doom 3 on the Xbox had lower poly models.

They also had to cut the level sizes to smaller parts.

It was a huge difference visually even the lowest PC settings looked a lot better than the Xbox version.

Worse resolution, lighting, effects, textures, bump maps. Same polygons, however, notice that there are wires missing in the Xbox version. That could be classed as geometry, but it's not proper geometry as it is flat with no volume. But yes there are cut level sequences, but that's just a case of taking them out to save resources.

The screenshot you are using is comparing the Xbox version on the right to the lowest PC settings on the left.

If I had the game installed I would show you the exact scene on the highest unmodded settings.

#976 Posted by SuddenlyTragic (786 posts) -

@MK-Professor said:

@Mozelleple112 said:

@MK-Professor said:

Best Looking Game Ever? LOL not even close (if you ask me it looks rather bad), then again I am used to play my games at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings.

That's a whole load of bull. Even if you do play all your games at 1440p, max settings and 60 fps (which requires a beastly rig and frequent upgrades to constantly provide throughout a generation) Infamous: SS doesn't look bad at all. Its easily comparable with the best looking PC games, just not definitively better than Crysis 3, modded GTA IV, Metro: LL etc. You could play those games @ 4096x2160p and still find Infamous good looking.

When your eye is used to 2560x1440 & 60fps something like 1080p & 30fps will not cut it anymore.

Pshh, you elitist prick. Any normal person would be able to appreciate how good Infamous looks even if they play "all their games 2560x1440, 60fps max settings." Name five games that look better. Go.

#977 Posted by m3dude1 (1367 posts) -

@MK-Professor said:

Best Looking Game Ever? LOL not even close (if you ask me it looks rather bad), then again I am used to play my games at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings.

what are your specs out of curiosity?

#978 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14454 posts) -

@GameFan1983 said:
@jun_aka_pekto said:

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

If that album is anything to go by, then infamous definitely has the most solid all around graphic out there. you just convinced me to buy a PS4 this weekend, good grief

edit: looks like the new screenshot function from ps4 really upset a lot pc gamers.

Those are some gorgeous Shots, holy shit.

that AA is just so damn good. I hope GTA 5 on pc modded to hell can look atleast this good and not the current freakshow ENB gta 4 is.

#979 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

The screenshot you are using is comparing the Xbox version on the right to the lowest PC settings on the left.

If I had the game installed I would show you the exact scene on the highest unmodded settings.

I have it so I went to the liberty of doing that for you. Both windowed at 1280x1024...

Doom 3 Lowest setting

Doom 3 Max Settings

From what I see, the polygons are exactly the same as each other, and that image I posted before was certainly not lowest settings.

Image I posted before.

Lowest settings compared to Xbox

It seems that the bump maps are on medium on Xbox as well as the lighting, the gun lighting is better contrasted and higher res. But the textures are lower than whats available on the PC version. They removed the thin wires on the Xbox to save resources. However the Xbox image is taken from an interlaced signal so it further degrades the image.

Highest settings compared to Xbox

Seems the image I posted was on high. The lighting, textures, bump maps, skin maps, everything is higher. Apart from the polygon count. Every object on screen features the same geometry. No given object was down scaled for the Xbox version. They removed some lower class objects like those wires for instance, but they maintained the same object geometry for all volumetric 3D models. But this does not change the fact that the PC version is still superior to look at regardless of polygon count, and I guess that was kalipekona's point from the start.

#980 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

@GameFan1983 said:
@jun_aka_pekto said:

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

If that album is anything to go by, then infamous definitely has the most solid all around graphic out there. you just convinced me to buy a PS4 this weekend, good grief

edit: looks like the new screenshot function from ps4 really upset a lot pc gamers.

Damn, no wonder there are a lot of butthurt lems and hermits in this thread. Those pics are glorious. Easily one of the best looking games of all time and definitely open world graphics king.

#981 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@I_can_haz said:

@GameFan1983 said:
@jun_aka_pekto said:

This is someone's image gallery in Imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/kpPWl?gallery

Very nice. How big is the game world?

If that album is anything to go by, then infamous definitely has the most solid all around graphic out there. you just convinced me to buy a PS4 this weekend, good grief

edit: looks like the new screenshot function from ps4 really upset a lot pc gamers.

Damn, no wonder there are a lot of butthurt lems and hermits in this thread. Those pics are glorious. Easily one of the best looking games of all time and definitely open world graphics king.

Put it this way, it's by far the best graphics game of it's open world genre. The improvement from infamous 2 is vast in technical terms. It even goes up against Crysis 3 in some respects, which if you say that to a PC die hard, they go in defensive mode as if we are saying the PC is less powerful.

#982 Edited by gpuking (2888 posts) -

No graphics card atm that can run Crysis 3 or Metro LL at 2560 x 1440 res average 60fps at max settings, and I don't believe anyone here has a titan sli rig either so stfu and reveal your spec first before BS.

Again Infamous at the very least hangs with the best of PC games out now.

#983 Posted by BlbecekBobecek (2689 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@Spartan070 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

Best looking game is hard to classify, as the scale of the game will affect its graphical output. In sheer visuals, Infamous doesn't stack up to the likes of Killzone and Ryse, but both of those are controlled, linear games with limited gameplay options compared to Infamous. If we're talking open world games, then it's very possible that it's the best looking open world game.

However, I think had GTA 5 launched on next-gen consoles, it wouldn't even be a competition.

I'm betting it won't be on Infamous level, they'll still be ports where as Infamous was designed around a single platform.

GTAV PC maybe...

Well, yes, but what I meant was if GTA 5 was built specifically for next-gen consoles. Even on ps3/xbox 360, that game looks better than it has any business looking. Of course, it's riddled with horrendous jaggy's out the ass.

Rofl thank you for your opinion cpt. Hypothetical :-)

#984 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2604 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

Yes, generation is a word used for consoles. But PC games are largely console ports with no change to the core code at all. Doom 3 on PC showcased a lot of graphical assets that would later be in early PS3/360 games, that improved upon over the years. Doom 3 on PC features better resolution, lighting, textures, effects, bump maps and face maps than the Xbox version, but the polygons were created with the original Xbox in mind. It's a 6th gen game and it shows by the low polygon count alone even on PC. In fact it's pretty much the same situation as Crysis 3, 7th gen mesh, except there is more additional effects added on because, well, there is more effects nowadays than back in 2004.

In order to get Infamous SS to run on the PS3, the character models would have to be decreased in geometry, animations would be cut down as there would be a lack of polygons around the mouth and eyes, animations seem to be a primary advancement of 8th gen, just look at Ryse and Killzone SF. The particle effects would literally have to be recreated with drastically cut down technology. All of this is far more work than lowering texture resolution, shadows, tessellation, lighting, because all of those things are just overlays that can be toggled on and off, unlike character polygons, object polygons, geometry, animations etc. It would be time and money to change the code of the game for different platforms, and they are certinally not going to invest in changing those fundamental things for the enthusiast gaming PC market. Cevat Yerli says all that here:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cryteks-ceo-admits-that-crysis-3-was-limited-by-current-generation-consoles/

“The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It’s impossible not to limited by a limited console. By definition it’s the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes.”
“Could we have afforded a budge to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take.”

Why would he even say these things at all if it's a fully next gen game with no compromises? Because most of a games budget is in game design (characters, models, objects, artists, animations) which is why they are the fundamental assets, and all of which are exactly the same on the PS3/360. Not effects that are already present in the engine. You can add those effects for free with Cry Engine 3 editor. Look at what modders do for free for example. The next gen effects seen in Crysis 3 PC is what was already in Cryengine 3. Those same effects could be applied to a PS1 game mesh if they wanted. That PS1 game would indeed have 8th gen effects, but it's not next gen. A consistent difference between generations is also game size, that's because the core code of the game is more advanced throughout every generation. To say adding on lots of advanced stuff makes it just as next gen is ludicrous. Disagreements are inevitable with you lot of course.

Actually it looks like Doom 3 on the Xbox had lower poly models.

They also had to cut the level sizes to smaller parts.

It was a huge difference visually even the lowest PC settings looked a lot better than the Xbox version.

Worse resolution, lighting, effects, textures, bump maps. Same polygons, however, notice that there are wires missing in the Xbox version. That could be classed as geometry, but it's not proper geometry as it is flat with no volume. But yes there are cut level sequences, but that's just a case of taking them out to save resources.

Does remembering a day when Doom 3 was among the best looking games available make anyone else want to shake hands and appreciate how far graphics have come on every platform?

#985 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

Doom 3 was never that great to begin with.

And comparing just the polygons is stupid. You can clearly see they have removed things and lowered the textures and dropped the resolution and is probably a lower frame rate. Probably the same argument the Xbox One is going to have the the entire gen but people will still be saying well it's almost the same thing.

#986 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

I understand what your saying. Obviously draw distance determines how much geometry is on screen also. But geometry is pretty much the first primary improvement across generations. All PC games do is keep on adding new effects on top of last gen games, while in Crysis 3's instance, it is a lot of effects, it's still not the core of the game. You say that Crysis 3 is more next gen than infamous based on the fact that there are many 'next gen' quality effects being rendered.

Well. Take Halo for instance.

Lets just say we port the exact geometry, character models, vehicles, and all 3D objects of the game in their solid mesh form, stripped of textures of any kind, to CryEngine 3. Then we continue to add a Cryengine quality skymap, textures, tessellation, water waves, bump maps, lighting, particles, extra foliage, every next gen quality effect seen in Crysis 3. Does this result in a next gen game? Nope, it will still be a game with the fundamental assets of a 6th gen console game. It will look better to the end user, but it will not be next gen just because it displays some nice effects.

Next gen is used as a buzzword, but it's a logical statement to describe console leaps. Every console leap in history made significant improvements to the mesh, as well as other things. Looking as good and more advanced are two different things.

Generation is a word used for consoles only.

PC hardware gets better every 6 months to a year and there is usually a game released at the time that will take advantage of it one way or another.

For example Doom 3 unmodded would fit well as an earlier 360 or PS3 game.

What was done to the Xbox version of Doom 3 could be done to Infamous as well for it to run on the PS3.

Actually I think you wouldn't have to gimp Infamous as much to run on the PS3 as devs had to do for Doom 3 to run on the Xbox .

Yes, generation is a word used for consoles. But PC games are largely console ports with no change to the core code at all. Doom 3 on PC showcased a lot of graphical assets that would later be in early PS3/360 games, that improved upon over the years. Doom 3 on PC features better resolution, lighting, textures, effects, bump maps and face maps than the Xbox version, but the polygons were created with the original Xbox in mind. It's a 6th gen game and it shows by the low polygon count alone even on PC. In fact it's pretty much the same situation as Crysis 3, 7th gen mesh, except there is more additional effects added on because, well, there is more effects nowadays than back in 2004.

In order to get Infamous SS to run on the PS3, the character models would have to be decreased in geometry, animations would be cut down as there would be a lack of polygons around the mouth and eyes, animations seem to be a primary advancement of 8th gen, just look at Ryse and Killzone SF. The particle effects would literally have to be recreated with drastically cut down technology. All of this is far more work than lowering texture resolution, shadows, tessellation, lighting, because all of those things are just overlays that can be toggled on and off, unlike character polygons, object polygons, geometry, animations etc. It would be time and money to change the code of the game for different platforms, and they are certinally not going to invest in changing those fundamental things for the enthusiast gaming PC market. Cevat Yerli says all that here:

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cryteks-ceo-admits-that-crysis-3-was-limited-by-current-generation-consoles/

“The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It’s impossible not to limited by a limited console. By definition it’s the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes.”
“Could we have afforded a budge to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take.”

Why would he even say these things at all if it's a fully next gen game with no compromises? Because most of a games budget is in game design (characters, models, objects, artists, animations) which is why they are the fundamental assets, and all of which are exactly the same on the PS3/360. Not effects that are already present in the engine. You can add those effects for free with Cry Engine 3 editor. Look at what modders do for free for example. The next gen effects seen in Crysis 3 PC is what was already in Cryengine 3. Those same effects could be applied to a PS1 game mesh if they wanted. That PS1 game would indeed have 8th gen effects, but it's not next gen. A consistent difference between generations is also game size, that's because the core code of the game is more advanced throughout every generation. To say adding on lots of advanced stuff makes it just as next gen is ludicrous. Disagreements are inevitable with you lot of course.

Actually it looks like Doom 3 on the Xbox had lower poly models.

They also had to cut the level sizes to smaller parts.

It was a huge difference visually even the lowest PC settings looked a lot better than the Xbox version.

Worse resolution, lighting, effects, textures, bump maps. Same polygons, however, notice that there are wires missing in the Xbox version. That could be classed as geometry, but it's not proper geometry as it is flat with no volume. But yes there are cut level sequences, but that's just a case of taking them out to save resources.

Does remembering a day when Doom 3 was among the best looking games available make anyone else want to shake hands and appreciate how far graphics have come on every platform?

Most likely not because most PC gamers have a cold and calculating attitude to old graphics and like to call anything that isn't high end a 'POS gpu'. Even if that gpu was high end in it's day. You tell a PC die hard you have a GTX 280, and they will say your a 'peasant' and its a 'piece of shit' artifact. Then there's the contrary know it all's who pick at every single point you make regardless of what you say, and they will focus on the one thing you say in your argument that may be false but ignore the facts. The PC 'elitist' is a strange and obnoxious breed. No one on these forums are rational, well, very few.

But yes, we have came a long way since Doom 3. I remember being able to max it out on my 6800gt and 2.4 GHz AMD Athlon and feeling I've accomplished something. Since then however, PC gamers have turned into pricks. Not all PC gamers of course, but now you see whole forums devoted to the 'PC master race' as they sit pissing on console games and gamers like rats. At least with console fan boys it's petty arguments, but PC gamers are just vindictive.

#987 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -
@edwardecl said:

Doom 3 was never that great to begin with.

And comparing just the polygons is stupid. You can clearly see they have removed things and lowered the textures and dropped the resolution and is probably a lower frame rate. Probably the same argument the Xbox One is going to have the the entire gen but people will still be saying well it's almost the same thing.

Doom 3 on PC was thought of in the same light as Crysis 3 is on PC today back in 2004. It was up there with the likes of Half Life 2 and Far Cry. Compare it to anything at the time and it just cleaned up.

#988 Posted by MK-Professor (3828 posts) -

@SuddenlyTragic said:

@MK-Professor said:

@Mozelleple112 said:

@MK-Professor said:

Best Looking Game Ever? LOL not even close (if you ask me it looks rather bad), then again I am used to play my games at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings.

That's a whole load of bull. Even if you do play all your games at 1440p, max settings and 60 fps (which requires a beastly rig and frequent upgrades to constantly provide throughout a generation) Infamous: SS doesn't look bad at all. Its easily comparable with the best looking PC games, just not definitively better than Crysis 3, modded GTA IV, Metro: LL etc. You could play those games @ 4096x2160p and still find Infamous good looking.

When your eye is used to 2560x1440 & 60fps something like 1080p & 30fps will not cut it anymore.

Pshh, you elitist prick. Any normal person would be able to appreciate how good Infamous looks even if they play "all their games 2560x1440, 60fps max settings." Name five games that look better. Go.

Pretty much every game I play on my pc looks and run significantly better. Notice I never swear in my posts you on the other hand... that show something by it self.

#989 Posted by m3dude1 (1367 posts) -

and u still havent posted your specs

#990 Posted by scatteh316 (4961 posts) -

Aside from the quibble of no fully dynamic shadows Infamous looks amazing and is easily up there with the best <-- Hermit with a stupidly powerful PC

#991 Posted by RyviusARC (4615 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@edwardecl said:

Doom 3 was never that great to begin with.

And comparing just the polygons is stupid. You can clearly see they have removed things and lowered the textures and dropped the resolution and is probably a lower frame rate. Probably the same argument the Xbox One is going to have the the entire gen but people will still be saying well it's almost the same thing.

Doom 3 on PC was thought of in the same light as Crysis 3 is on PC today back in 2004. It was up there with the likes of Half Life 2 and Far Cry. Compare it to anything at the time and it just cleaned up.

Seems you were right about the screenshot of doom being on high settings guess the guy who originally posted the comparison was lying since that is where I got the source.

I might install Doom 3 and add mods just to see how much of an improvement it makes.

One thing you forget about going from the end of the Xbox generation to the end of the Xbox 360 generation is that the hardware was a lot better.

The 360 had unified shader tech which helped immensely with complex shaders that improved visuals greatly.

With this new generation the hardware leap is not as large and there are far more diminishing returns when it comes to visuals.

I have no doubt by the end of this generation that visuals will improve but I don't think the difference will be as great.

What I hope improves dramatically is A.I. and animations.

It's sad when a game like F.E.A.R. which came out before the Xbox 360 still has some of the best A.I.

#992 Edited by Pray_to_me (2877 posts) -

@ferret-gamer said:

@Pray_to_me said:

@ferret-gamer said:

This is exactly what i was talking about in the last page, but was conveniently ignored. Games have different LODs and it was common practice on consoles to use lower quality LODs for the same distance as the PC's higher quality LODs.

it's a non sequitur because you're talking about only character models. even if the dude from ryse has 20k more polygons than Delsin the environment infamous is rendering is like 10 times larger than those in Ryse. same goes for crysis 3.

That's the point you continue to ignore.

Where did you get that LODs only apply to character models? They are used for practically everything in a game. I even gave an extremely specific example of consoles having a lower max LOD than PC not related to character models. You should not be debating graphics if you don't even understand one of the most fundamental processes for optimization used in games.

The topic is the polygon count of Crysis 3 single player vs. Infamous: Second Son. Not Battlefield 3 multiplayer.

1. I never said that LOD only applied to character models. CrownKingArthur posted a link to a rule of thumb for Cryengine 3 developers regarding character models only and says nothing regarding environments. So not only does that eschew the point that Infamous is rendering a exponentially larger and more complex environment, it is also has nothing to do with Crysis 3 at all. It's a guideline for developers but no where ever does Crytek anywhere mention that they used different meshes of any kind- character or environment on the PC version vs. the PS360 version:

It's the same blocky linear ass environment. Tessellation is applied to only a handful of objects, and draw distance? Pfff what is there to draw? It's a corridor shooter with small enclosed areas. Even in the few places that it does somewhat open up it's flat and the geometry simple with 2D and/or static backgrounds:

It's cute though that you tried to get snide and condescending but if you think that the areas in Crysis 3 even come close to comparing to the scope of what second son is rendering:

...than you're the biggest noob on this board.

#993 Posted by ferret-gamer (17327 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

@ferret-gamer said:

@Pray_to_me said:

@ferret-gamer said:

This is exactly what i was talking about in the last page, but was conveniently ignored. Games have different LODs and it was common practice on consoles to use lower quality LODs for the same distance as the PC's higher quality LODs.

it's a non sequitur because you're talking about only character models. even if the dude from ryse has 20k more polygons than Delsin the environment infamous is rendering is like 10 times larger than those in Ryse. same goes for crysis 3.

That's the point you continue to ignore.

Where did you get that LODs only apply to character models? They are used for practically everything in a game. I even gave an extremely specific example of consoles having a lower max LOD than PC not related to character models. You should not be debating graphics if you don't even understand one of the most fundamental processes for optimization used in games.

The topic is the polygon count of Crysis 3 single player vs. Infamous: Second Son. Not Battlefield 3 multiplayer.

1. I never said that LOD only applied to character models. CrownKingArthur posted a link to a rule of thumb for Cryengine 3 developers regarding character models only and says nothing regarding environments. So not only does that eschew the point that Infamous is rendering a exponentially larger and more complex environment, it is also has nothing to do with Crysis 3 at all. It's a guideline for developers but no where ever does Crytek anywhere mention that they used different meshes of any kind- character or environment on the PC version vs. the PS360 version:

It's the same blocky linear ass environment. Tessellation is applied to only a handful of objects, and draw distance? Pfff what is there to draw? It's a corridor shooter with small enclosed areas. Even in the few places that it does somewhat open up it's flat and the geometry simple with 2D and/or static backgrounds:

It's cute though that you tried to get snide and condescending but if you think that the areas in Crysis 3 even come close to comparing to the scope of what second son is rendering:

...than you're the biggest noob on this board.

Good job trying to divert the point and attack me on something completely separate from what i was talking about.

Did i ever say that Crysis 3 was an open world game and have areas as large as Infamous SS? No, I did not.

Was the topic of LODs ever related to Crysis 3 singularly? No, it was not. The entire discussion was PC game versions polycounts vs the console versions. Guess what? There are more games in existence than Crysis 3. You so adamantly kept claiming that they all had the exact same poly count. That is simply not true, no matter how much you try to wiggle around it, or limit it to a single game.

#994 Posted by Pray_to_me (2877 posts) -

@ferret-gamer said:

Good job trying to divert the point and attack me on something completely separate from what i was talking about.

Did i ever say that Crysis 3 was an open world game and have areas as large as Infamous SS? No, I did not.

Was the topic of LODs ever related to Crysis 3 singularly? No, it was not. The entire discussion was PC game versions polycounts vs the console versions. Guess what? There are more games in existence than Crysis 3. You so adamantly kept claiming that they all had the exact same poly count. That is simply not true, no matter how much you try to wiggle around it, or limit it to a single game.

And yet you brought up LOD in the context of defending Crysis 3 and the assertion that it has a lower poly count than Second Son.

Feel free to supplant Crysis 3 with any game you please. It'll still lose for the same reason.

#995 Edited by ferret-gamer (17327 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

@ferret-gamer said:

Good job trying to divert the point and attack me on something completely separate from what i was talking about.

Did i ever say that Crysis 3 was an open world game and have areas as large as Infamous SS? No, I did not.

Was the topic of LODs ever related to Crysis 3 singularly? No, it was not. The entire discussion was PC game versions polycounts vs the console versions. Guess what? There are more games in existence than Crysis 3. You so adamantly kept claiming that they all had the exact same poly count. That is simply not true, no matter how much you try to wiggle around it, or limit it to a single game.

And yet you brought up LOD in the context of defending Crysis 3 and the assertion that it has a lower poly count than Second Son.

Feel free to supplant Crysis 3 with any game you please. It'll still lose for the same reason.

I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.

However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.

Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.

#996 Posted by Pray_to_me (2877 posts) -

@ferret-gamer said:

I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.

However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.

Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.

You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?

I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.

PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...

#997 Posted by ButDuuude (476 posts) -

Holy crap, this thread is still going! Infamous: Second Son may not be the best looking game ever, but it's probably the beanie king or brick king, at least on cosoles lol.

#998 Edited by melonfarmerz (1189 posts) -

The Star Citizen Dog Fighting Module is slated to come out late April to Early May so I guess we can start comparing?

The demo was very buggy but hey, when was the last time you saw a non scripted demo of a game 2 years away from release?

Sorry about the disgusting quality/blur. I had to take screencaps of a low quality Twitch stream... Just imagine it in 1080p

Also, this helmet flip is so cool

#999 Edited by ferret-gamer (17327 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

@ferret-gamer said:

I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.

However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.

Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.

You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?

I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.

PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...

This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.

#1000 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5588 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@edwardecl said:

Doom 3 was never that great to begin with.

And comparing just the polygons is stupid. You can clearly see they have removed things and lowered the textures and dropped the resolution and is probably a lower frame rate. Probably the same argument the Xbox One is going to have the the entire gen but people will still be saying well it's almost the same thing.

Doom 3 on PC was thought of in the same light as Crysis 3 is on PC today back in 2004. It was up there with the likes of Half Life 2 and Far Cry. Compare it to anything at the time and it just cleaned up.

Seems you were right about the screenshot of doom being on high settings guess the guy who originally posted the comparison was lying since that is where I got the source.

I might install Doom 3 and add mods just to see how much of an improvement it makes.

One thing you forget about going from the end of the Xbox generation to the end of the Xbox 360 generation is that the hardware was a lot better.

The 360 had unified shader tech which helped immensely with complex shaders that improved visuals greatly.

With this new generation the hardware leap is not as large and there are far more diminishing returns when it comes to visuals.

I have no doubt by the end of this generation that visuals will improve but I don't think the difference will be as great.

What I hope improves dramatically is A.I. and animations.

It's sad when a game like F.E.A.R. which came out before the Xbox 360 still has some of the best A.I.

I remember seeing the Xbox 360 and thinking is this even possible? Graphics like that in a little box? I was used to Doom 3, Far cry etc at 1280x1024. Xbox 360 in 2005 was beyond the gaming PC in visual quality for the most part. It's CPU was far ahead of the AMD Athlon for instance. And in this respect, The PS4 is an underwhelming device in terms of raw power, as it is like a low to mid range gaming PC as every PC gamer under the sun likes to point out. DX9.0c, what the PS3/360 is equivalent to, was probably the single biggest leap in visual quality. It still can produce some of the best visuals today. Perhaps far less efficiently than DX11, but the point is, it can. Where as DX8 cards cannot. However, tessellation, though DX9 cards could attempt it, is just not feasible without special hardware like the DX11 cards have.

Any way. Now we are seeing a generation where It has only improved upon the same graphical assets we seen with the 360 and DX9.0c, Where as the 360 introduced new effects that didn't even exist on earlier gpu's or consoles. This results in diminishing returns because the PS4 might have a more improved lighting for instance, but at first glance, it's unnoticeable. Where as from Xbox, to 360, they pretty much introduced dynamic lighting and shadows which made a massive improvement in image quality, And on top of that, polygon counts, animations and A.I were an order of magnitude better almost. So yes, there are diminishing returns, no doubt.

Animations are improving most defiantly with this new generation. Just compare Crysis 3 to Killzone Shadow Fall, Ryse or even ISS. It should only get better too as the generation progresses, because at this point, with effects and polygon counts already achieving the diminishing returns mark, things like animations and AI are the most logical thing to improve upon. While of course using better meshes, textures, and effects, animations and AI should be a bigger focus in this generation to enhance immersion. This is why I call them 'fundamental', because they are part of the game code, where as lighting and textures aren't (although they still greatly improve the image for the end user). Basically, if a given graphical asset can be turned on and off in a PC game, It is not fundamental. There is no AI and animation toggle, or polygon count toggle. This is all I'm saying.