Is Infamous: Second Son the Best Looking Game Ever?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#301 Posted by lostrib (37042 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

@lostrib said:

@kinectthedots said:

@lostrib said:

@kinectthedots said:

@lostrib said:

@kinectthedots said:

I remember how lemmings fapped over open world games as far a graphics were concerned last gen (red dead) and scoffed at linear games with impressive graphics (GOWIII)

it's funny to see lemmings try to win a graphics debate with linear Ryse over open world/sandbox Infamous Second Son now as if they haven't been dismissing linear games with good graphics for an entire generation.

No, I don't remember that at all

lol, of course 'you' wouldn't

why is that?

Selective meomry

and you base this one what?

To help your selective memory, since I don't have time to baby you and your wasteful round of questions playing dumb, here from one thread. There a more but this is all I will do, you can look up the rest yourself.

Since you say you didn't remember that AT ALL we know your memory isn't worth a damn or you are just a worthless troll, either way you can stop trying now.

EG101
Member Since:July 30, 2007
Posts:856
  • Forum Posts: 856
  • Followed by: 0
  • Reviews: 0 Stacks: 0

#39 Posted by EG101 (856 posts) - 1 year, 8 months ago

GOW3 sacrifices so much to be pretty. Fixed cameras so that the PS3 doesn't need to render every side of an object plus every level is literally a tight corridor even when its an outdoor level. Anyway PS3 is better at rendering tight levels that fit into PS3's dual 128 bit busses while 360 is better at doing open world games that don't fit into PS3's 128 bit x 2 bus but can be tiled to fit into 360's ED Ram. Each console has their advantage but the fanboys on System Wars won't let the stupid argument die.

.........

delta3074
Member Since:September 22, 2007
Posts:17000
  • Forum Posts: 17000
  • Followed by: 43
  • Reviews: 2 Stacks: 0

#41 Posted by delta3074 (17000 posts) - 1 year, 8 months ago

GOW3 looks empty and plain comparign to both Gears 3 and Witcher 2 and the coming Halo 4 too

Look how small the coriddors are and how empty every area is, it has great rendering, but does not touch the 360 ones overall

it destroys gears and witcher 2 xbox version, better AA and higher detailed models.

Gow 3 has better AA but the models in gears 3 are easily on par with Gow 3, Gears 3 has a better lighting system and better/more impressive partical effects, you are also comparing a Game with a fixed camera against a game that has a full 3D camera 'What the game may lack in terms of anti-aliasing it more than makes up for with a raft of extremely well realised effects. Aside from a general increase in the overall detail level, perhaps the most impactful improvement made to the game concerns the lighting. In previous Gears titles, the effect has always been direct, often overly bright and unnatural, giving a somewhat harsh look to the highly detailed art, with specular elements in particular sticking out somewhat (and adding to aliasing issues in their own way). Things are different in the new game: the team has utilised the Unreal Lightmass global illumination tech to excellent effect: light and shadow now have real depth and volume and work in combination with UE3 real-time effects such as the god-rays/sun-shafts we saw in the Xbox 360 and PC versions of Bulletstorm released earlier this year. ' 'Another notable inclusion in the VFX toolbox is the excellent implementation of atmospheric rendering, giving a real sense of scale and ambience to a variety of levels. Alpha and particle effects in general are quite remarkable - a real improvement over what we've seen before in previous Unreal Engine games, and reminiscent at times of the gritty atmosphere evoked by Killzone 3 and Resistance 3. The fact that Unreal Engine 3 throw so many transparencies about while maintaining its performance level to the extent that it does is another feather in the cap of the Epic engineers.' 'It's safe to say that Gears of War 3 is one of the most advanced video games of this generation, and a ringing endorsement of what the Xbox 360 is capable of handling when the right people, the right tech, a lengthy development cycle and an inordinately large budget are in play. From a technological perspective, with just a few caveats that we've touched upon, the overall presentation is first class.' http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-gears-of-war-3?page=2 Personally i would gears 3 the nod but it's really close and Gow 3's use of MLAA is very impressive, i would say that Gow 3 is definitly an awesome looking game, Best in the hack and slash genre and probably the most jaggie Free exclusive on consoles to date. And those people saying gears 3 doesn't come close to any of the top end Ps3 exclusives are just talking rubbish, fanboyism at it's finest,lol......http://auth.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/no-game-on-the-xbox360-looks-better-than-gow3-on-p-29230792/

The thing about GOWIII on PS3 though is that it wasn't just the best looking console game of it's time, it also had technically impressive merits to back it up. The best AA of it's time MLAA, 720p and high frame 30 - 45 rate that never faltered.

These are technical feats that Ryse, despite being extremely impressive on base graphics, fail to achieve. Ryse, even in it's linear setting, can't compete with Infamous SS on any technical level which is why it's funny lemming are even trying now knowing the arguments they came with in the past.

...so your examples of people dismissing linear games with pretty graphics are two posts that state how great the graphics are in GOW3? And one of those examples is LoosingEnds who was a troll that used to claim that Witcher 2 on 360 looked better than the PC version.

And honestly, you shouldn't be calling anyone out as a worthless troll

#302 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:
@Evo_nine said:

those infamous screenshots look like shit

the quicker cows can accept ryse is the king, the quicker we can all go home.

We're already at home. Dumb fanboys don't even know where they're at.

Rofl, I have no idea why this made me laugh but it did.

#303 Posted by The_Last_Ride (71869 posts) -

@Messiahbolical- said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@MonsieurX said:

Ever?

That would be a stupid thing to say since it'll get outclassed soon even if it's considered the best looking game now

You still didn't mention any game that looks better though

Anyways, doesn't Crysis 3 look amazing on highest graphics on pc?

Crysis 3 is the worst looking of the Crysis games(and worst running as well), Crysis 1 being the best easily. Crytek seems to only get worse instead of better.

Really? Come on dude

#304 Posted by gpuking (2873 posts) -

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

#305 Edited by X1andps4Owner (11 posts) -

Definitely the best looking new gen console game yet, puts titanfall, ryse, and killzone to shame when it comes to visuals

#306 Posted by Mkavanaugh77 (20825 posts) -

Titanfall is AAA though

puts Infamous to shame when it comes to the better game.

#307 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@Mkavanaugh77 said:

Titanfall is AAA though

puts Infamous to shame when it comes to the better game.

You said this exact same shit earlier only using GTA5.

Lay off the crack.

#308 Posted by Mkavanaugh77 (20825 posts) -

Both are AAA and better than Infamous, thats probably why I said the exact same thing.

butthurt?

#309 Edited by melonfarmerz (1173 posts) -

@SuddenlyTragic said:

@melonfarmerz said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@melonfarmerz: If you don't think infamous SS is one of the best looking games it's because you haven't played it.

I don't own a PS4 so I can't say I have. I'm not denying that it's top 5. Looking at gameplay, it's really pretty good. However, you can't compare it to Crysis 3. 99% of the posts on this thread would agree with me

If you've never played it how can you say you can't compare it to Crysis 3? I own every Crysis game and still would say Infamous overall has more of a wow factor than Crysis 3 did. Crysis 3's graphics are essentially the exact same as Crysis 2's, which are amazing don't get me wrong. Yes Crysis 3 looks very good but Infamous is very much in the same league. Crysis 2 and 3 are incredibly linear when compared to Infamous or the original Crysis, making Infamous look that much better as it's in an open-world environment and still looks this good.

And to those talking about The Witcher 2...Really? It looks pretty good but I was never blown away when playing it, that's for sure.

Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 on PC are far superior to SS. SS is by far the best console game but that's as far as it goes.

#310 Edited by navyguy21 (12887 posts) -

@gpuking said:

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

I play on a 60in HDTV, and i have all 3 games. Ryse looks better.

Also, you cant say that Infamous has more going on and a greater draw distance. Im guessing you havent played Ryse?

There are tons of things going on, tons of particles, tons of enemies, etc.

#311 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@navyguy21 said:

@gpuking said:

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

I play on a 60in HDTV, and i have all 3 games. Ryse looks better.

Also, you cant say that Infamous has more going on and a greater draw distance. Im guessing you havent played Ryse?

There are tons of things going on, tons of particles, tons of enemies, etc.

Wut.

#312 Posted by clyde46 (46311 posts) -

Best looking game ever? LOL no, that title belongs to Mirrors Edge.

#313 Posted by navyguy21 (12887 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@navyguy21 said:

@gpuking said:

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

I play on a 60in HDTV, and i have all 3 games. Ryse looks better.

Also, you cant say that Infamous has more going on and a greater draw distance. Im guessing you havent played Ryse?

There are tons of things going on, tons of particles, tons of enemies, etc.

Wut.

What is it that you want me to clarify or respond to?

#314 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@navyguy21 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@navyguy21 said:

@gpuking said:

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

I play on a 60in HDTV, and i have all 3 games. Ryse looks better.

Also, you cant say that Infamous has more going on and a greater draw distance. Im guessing you havent played Ryse?

There are tons of things going on, tons of particles, tons of enemies, etc.

Wut.

What is it that you want me to clarify or respond to?

How you feel that Ryse has just about as much going on as infamous besides being a linear game. That would be a good start.

#315 Edited by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

#316 Posted by clyde46 (46311 posts) -

@I_can_haz said:

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

Well, you must notice those FPS drops in Infamous SS then.

#317 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@I_can_haz said:

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

Well, you must notice those FPS drops in Infamous SS then.

The lowest one I've seen was like 28fps or something.

Ryse was hovering around 15 in spots.

There's even a quote from DF about it.

"Originally touted as a solid 30fps experience, Ryse misses the mark more often than we'd like with frame-rates often fluctuating between 26-28fps and the most challenging situations even seeing the frame-rate drop into the teens."

#318 Posted by navyguy21 (12887 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@navyguy21 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@navyguy21 said:

@gpuking said:

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

I play on a 60in HDTV, and i have all 3 games. Ryse looks better.

Also, you cant say that Infamous has more going on and a greater draw distance. Im guessing you havent played Ryse?

There are tons of things going on, tons of particles, tons of enemies, etc.

Wut.

What is it that you want me to clarify or respond to?

How you feel that Ryse has just about as much going on as infamous besides being a linear game. That would be a good start.

Listen, im more than willing to have a discussion, but dont come at me being a smartass.

Are you familiar with how game development works? How software development works? (genuine question)

Being a linear game doesnt always mean your draw distance is shorter or have less particle effects. Its all what the dev chooses to render.

Example, i could argue that the buildings in Infamous allows the dev to render less distance since the player cant see that far.

Or i could argue that while on a building, the distance rendered in Infamous is similar to the distance rendered in Ryse from atop a mountain or hill, etc.

Second point, there is a war going on in Ryse most of the time with tons happening in the background. There is none of that in Infamous. Now im not saying that Infamous doesnt have much going on because i wasnt on the development team. But i can say first hand that i see more on screen in Ryse than i have ever seen in Infamous.

Dismissing Ryse because it isnt open world means you have an agenda to begin with. I have both and play both, and i also know a lot about software development. You cannot dismiss a game as inferior simply because it is linear or 900p.

Perfect example would be Uncharted 2. Should we dismiss its graphics or scripted sequences simply because they ARE scripted?

How about GOW3? Heavy Rain? Gears 3?

#319 Posted by clyde46 (46311 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@clyde46 said:

@I_can_haz said:

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

Well, you must notice those FPS drops in Infamous SS then.

The lowest one I've seen was like 28fps or something.

Ryse was hovering around 15 in spots.

Thats a very exact value for a game that has no FPS counter.

#320 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@navyguy21 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@navyguy21 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@navyguy21 said:

@gpuking said:

Technically Infamous is doing so much more than Ryse. Being native 1080p, 30-40fps average, tons of gpgpu particles, much grander draw distance, tons more geometry in the level and open world. Also people who prefers Ryse hasn't played it on a large tv screen back and forth with Infamous or Killzone. The difference is clear as day. Crysis 3 probably still looks better but it's not open world either.

I play on a 60in HDTV, and i have all 3 games. Ryse looks better.

Also, you cant say that Infamous has more going on and a greater draw distance. Im guessing you havent played Ryse?

There are tons of things going on, tons of particles, tons of enemies, etc.

Wut.

What is it that you want me to clarify or respond to?

How you feel that Ryse has just about as much going on as infamous besides being a linear game. That would be a good start.

Listen, im more than willing to have a discussion, but dont come at me being a smartass.

Are you familiar with how game development works? How software development works? (genuine question)

Being a linear game doesnt always mean your draw distance is shorter or have less particle effects. Its all what the dev chooses to render.

Example, i could argue that the buildings in Infamous allows the dev to render less distance since the player cant see that far.

Or i could argue that while on a building, the distance rendered in Infamous is similar to the distance rendered in Ryse from atop a mountain or hill, etc.

Second point, there is a war going on in Ryse most of the time with tons happening in the background. There is none of that in Infamous. Now im not saying that Infamous doesnt have much going on because i wasnt on the development team. But i can say first hand that i see more on screen in Ryse than i have ever seen in Infamous.

Dismissing Ryse because it isnt open world means you have an agenda to begin with. I have both and play both, and i also know a lot about software development. You cannot dismiss a game as inferior simply because it is linear or 900p.

Perfect example would be Uncharted 2. Should we dismiss its graphics or scripted sequences simply because they ARE scripted?

How about GOW3? Heavy Rain? Gears 3?

But as has been pointed out the difference between Ryse and infamous is not anything approaching UC2,3 vs say GTA4.

Sorry but your reasoning just comes off as childish, I don't mean to be a smartass but when you make ridiculous comments like that it's hard not to be.

#321 Posted by AM-Gamer (3941 posts) -

@navyguy21 said:

@I_can_haz said:

@navyguy21 said:

So im a lem because i disagree with you? lol

How does that make you any different from me? You think one game looks better.......i think the other. Only difference is i actually own both consoles, all 3 games discussed, and have played them weekly. I think my opinion on the matter is far more unbiased given your posting history, but whatever.

Call me what you want. System Wars knows the truth. ;-)

I am the truth of SW :P

Anyways it doesn't matter, Ryse's 900p automatically disqualifies it from being taken seriously in graphical debates IMO. It's a foggy blurry mess and the fact it's super linear and uses pre-rendered cutscenes is an insult.

LOL, Ok.

I think the rest of the industry also disagrees with you, but its cool. I understand your motives.

There hasn't been anybody on any website that has claimed Ryse looked better then Infamous SS. Fact is nobody has even compared them. I own a PS4, Xbox one and Wii U. My gamer tag is "TheSterls" on both XBL and PSN. Feel free to verify. I played the first two chapters of Ryse and to be honest it doesn't hold Infamous SS jock. If you want to compare textures , lighting and geometry then there both very similar and far above most games. But Ryse has 3 things that put it far below Infamous.

1. Its image quality is lacking compared to Infamous SS. 900p is not bad looking but there is a small difference between that and 1080p. You will also know that Ryse use of AA is less advanced then Infamous SS. They use the same technique but Infamous does a 2x SMAA while Ryse implements a 1x.

2. Performance is another problem with Ryse , sometimes even dipping into the teens, while Infamous averages 35fps and rarely ever drops below 30. You may have have times where it hits high 20s but thats usually with dozens of enemies and loads of particle effects.

3. The largest difference between them is the Scale. When first playing Ryse I thought it looked beautiful but its kind of depressing when you see this awesome looking world and you cant find a way past the small fence or any other of the vast amount of invisible walls they put in the game. In Infamous if you see it you can go there and thats a huge advantage.

#322 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@clyde46 said:

@I_can_haz said:

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

Well, you must notice those FPS drops in Infamous SS then.

The lowest one I've seen was like 28fps or something.

Ryse was hovering around 15 in spots.

Thats a very exact value for a game that has no FPS counter.

I thought I'd be kind and give a middle of the road figure for the teens. Do you want to read the article?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

#323 Posted by navyguy21 (12887 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

But has been pointed out the difference between Ryse and infamous is not anything approaching UC2,3 vs say GTA4.

Sorry but your reasoning just comes off as childish, I don't mean to be a smartass but when you make ridiculous comments like that it's hard not to be.

lol, childish? So nothing i said is relevant or matters?

Are we just to go on your guidelines or templates on what matters as far as graphics?

So my software development experience doesnt matter?

My experience with both games doesnt matter?

Should i just be like you and decide based on which console i prefer instead of facts and common sense?

#324 Edited by clyde46 (46311 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@clyde46 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@clyde46 said:

@I_can_haz said:

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

Well, you must notice those FPS drops in Infamous SS then.

The lowest one I've seen was like 28fps or something.

Ryse was hovering around 15 in spots.

Thats a very exact value for a game that has no FPS counter.

I thought I'd be kind and give a middle of the road figure for the teens. Do you want to read the article?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

I was referring to SS, I know just how bad Ryse's FPS is.

#325 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@navyguy21 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

But has been pointed out the difference between Ryse and infamous is not anything approaching UC2,3 vs say GTA4.

Sorry but your reasoning just comes off as childish, I don't mean to be a smartass but when you make ridiculous comments like that it's hard not to be.

lol, childish? So nothing i said is relevant or matters?

Are we just to go on your guidelines or templates on what matters as far as graphics?

So my software development experience doesnt matter?

My experience with both games doesnt matter?

Should i just be like you and decide based on which console i prefer instead of facts and common sense?

You're welcome to whatever delusions you fancy, it's your life.

Trying to insinuate that Ryse despite having a small play area with a sketchy frame rate is just as impressive as rendering an entire city which you can move freely around in despite offering a comparable visual experience is just one of the silliest things I've heard said on this board is all.

#326 Posted by AM-Gamer (3941 posts) -

@melonfarmerz said:

@SuddenlyTragic said:

@melonfarmerz said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@melonfarmerz: If you don't think infamous SS is one of the best looking games it's because you haven't played it.

I don't own a PS4 so I can't say I have. I'm not denying that it's top 5. Looking at gameplay, it's really pretty good. However, you can't compare it to Crysis 3. 99% of the posts on this thread would agree with me

If you've never played it how can you say you can't compare it to Crysis 3? I own every Crysis game and still would say Infamous overall has more of a wow factor than Crysis 3 did. Crysis 3's graphics are essentially the exact same as Crysis 2's, which are amazing don't get me wrong. Yes Crysis 3 looks very good but Infamous is very much in the same league. Crysis 2 and 3 are incredibly linear when compared to Infamous or the original Crysis, making Infamous look that much better as it's in an open-world environment and still looks this good.

And to those talking about The Witcher 2...Really? It looks pretty good but I was never blown away when playing it, that's for sure.

Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 on PC are far superior to SS. SS is by far the best console game but that's as far as it goes.

Um yea you are wrong. The difference is I had quite a big of expereince with the Witcher 2 on a GTX 680 and no it does not look as good as Infamous SS. You are just randomly babbling about a game you have never played. As good as some of these screenshots look in this thread they are still compressed. Seeing the game in person would change your mind in a second.

#327 Posted by navyguy21 (12887 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

You're welcome to whatever delusions you fancy, it's your life.

Trying to insinuate that Ryse despite having a small play area with a sketchy frame rate is just as impressive as rendering an entire city which you can move freely around in despite offering a comparable visual experience is just one of the silliest things I've heard said on this board is all.

Ok, im done...

#328 Edited by OhSnapitz (18412 posts) -

@lbjkurono23 said:

The more I play infamous, the more I'm convinced it's the best looking game on consoles. Can't wait to see what god of war, uncharted, and tlou 2 end up looking like.

Ps: That neon power is insane.

I prefer the VIDEO

..but it is nice to see a SW's war the excludes sales numbers.. Oh and the fact that most are comparing Ryse and SS to a PC game on high settings...

gotta love next gen.

#329 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14111 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@clyde46 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@clyde46 said:

@I_can_haz said:

Ryse is not impressive at all next to Infamous or KZSF. Tiny corridors, lots of fog, low enemy numbers, 900p with framedrops all over the place. It may fool simpletons but it doesn't fool me. I've been playing PC games way too long to not notice shitty framerates and 900p blurriness.

Well, you must notice those FPS drops in Infamous SS then.

The lowest one I've seen was like 28fps or something.

Ryse was hovering around 15 in spots.

Thats a very exact value for a game that has no FPS counter.

I thought I'd be kind and give a middle of the road figure for the teens. Do you want to read the article?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-ryse-son-of-rome

I was referring to SS, I know just how bad Ryse's FPS is.

The only point I was trying to make was that Infamous has a much more stable frame rate.

#330 Edited by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

@clyde46: Yes I do. Thankfully the framerate in Infamous rarely dips below 30 and stays comfortably at 35fps most if the time. I can't say the same for Ryse and its almost slideshow framerates when I played it.

#331 Posted by AM-Gamer (3941 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@Peredith said:

Infamous Second Son is an huge scale open world game with permanent destruction. Wasn't that the argument hermits used when claiming the original Crysis looked better than other games? It's scale and destructible environments? Infamous Second Son looks far more impressive than Crysis 3. Stop kidding yourselves, Herms. And at the person saying Crysis 2 looks better, LOL.

As someone who plays Infamous... not it friggin doesn't ... you are talking crap. hell the game doesn't have tesselation and alot of other modern PC effects that are in Crysis 3. Sure its smooth, it has AA, nice particle effects ... its a massive step up for you peasants...

But its still not Crysis 3 vanilla, let alone modded.

Please if your going to babble and call people peasant's at lest get your facts straight. Infamous SS does use Tessellation, actually quite a bit of it. It also has some nice effects that are not found in Crysis 3 are any other pc game for that matter. So please STFU.

#332 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2582 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@kinectthedots said:

@lostrib said:

@kinectthedots said:

@lostrib said:

@kinectthedots said:

I remember how lemmings fapped over open world games as far a graphics were concerned last gen (red dead) and scoffed at linear games with impressive graphics (GOWIII)

it's funny to see lemmings try to win a graphics debate with linear Ryse over open world/sandbox Infamous Second Son now as if they haven't been dismissing linear games with good graphics for an entire generation.

No, I don't remember that at all

lol, of course 'you' wouldn't

why is that?

Selective meomry

and you base this one what?

lostrib, you're typically one of the more level-headed people on here, so please hear me when I say this isn't directed at you... But Sony fanboys can be just as bad as Microsoft fanboys. The one's kinectthedots is talking about. The thing about being a blind fanboy is that you argue the strengths of absolutely whatever your company gives you. Sometimes it's an open world game, sometimes it's a linear game -- which of course are going to be different graphically and everything else -- but these silly arguments aren't immune to a single console, and I think that's what kinectthedots is saying here -- and directing it at the wrong kind of poster because like I said, you're typically one of the more level-headed people here.

Xbox 360 had this kind of commanding lead last generation and was running multiplatforms better and all that jazz, and Microsoft enthusiasts were making the same arguments ps4 gamers are now, and vice versa. Really the only people who are losing in system wars are the people who are so biased they refuse to see any value in any other console besides the one they assign allegiance to. Xbox One is my least favorite console of the three on the market right now... But that doesn't mean I'm going to allow myself to dismiss everything it has to offer. That would be doing myself a disservice as a person who loves playing games.

To close off the rant, Sony fanboys have done exactly the same thing Microsoft fanboys are doing right now. And they'll do it again. Just like Microsoft fanboys will do it again. It's a never-ending cycle of stupidity, and while Microsoft fanboys aren't any better or worse than Sony fanboys, I can see exactly where their arguments are coming from, because Sony fanboys were making the same arguments about graphics with God of War III that Microsoft fanboys are making about Ryse (although Ryse is a pretty awful game, in my own -- and lots of others' -- opinions.

And for the sake of backing both of you up, kinectthedots, what you're saying is absolutely correct about people arguing the same things about God of War, but you're completely aiming it at the wrong kind of gamer with lostrib. BAM. Fairness.

#333 Edited by SuddenlyTragic (765 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@melonfarmerz said:

@SuddenlyTragic said:

@melonfarmerz said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@melonfarmerz: If you don't think infamous SS is one of the best looking games it's because you haven't played it.

I don't own a PS4 so I can't say I have. I'm not denying that it's top 5. Looking at gameplay, it's really pretty good. However, you can't compare it to Crysis 3. 99% of the posts on this thread would agree with me

If you've never played it how can you say you can't compare it to Crysis 3? I own every Crysis game and still would say Infamous overall has more of a wow factor than Crysis 3 did. Crysis 3's graphics are essentially the exact same as Crysis 2's, which are amazing don't get me wrong. Yes Crysis 3 looks very good but Infamous is very much in the same league. Crysis 2 and 3 are incredibly linear when compared to Infamous or the original Crysis, making Infamous look that much better as it's in an open-world environment and still looks this good.

And to those talking about The Witcher 2...Really? It looks pretty good but I was never blown away when playing it, that's for sure.

Crysis 3 and The Witcher 2 on PC are far superior to SS. SS is by far the best console game but that's as far as it goes.

Um yea you are wrong. The difference is I had quite a big of expereince with the Witcher 2 on a GTX 680 and no it does not look as good as Infamous SS. You are just randomly babbling about a game you have never played. As good as some of these screenshots look in this thread they are still compressed. Seeing the game in person would change your mind in a second.

Absolute truth. Playing Infamous SS "in person" (you know, actually having played the game rather than looking at random screenshots) would change your mind. I own and have played through the Witcher 2 on PC and it looked good two years ago and still does look good today. But seeing the two of them in motion, SS is a clear winner. The only edge the Witcher would have is in terms of framerate, but obviously with a good enough rig any game is going to run above 60fps. There is way more going on in Infamous at once, along with a much larger world, better lighting and particle effects, and it just looks better overall. I really don't understand this Witcher argument, I wouldn't even consider comparing the two honestly.

The only games that I feel are even worthy of a comparison are Crysis 2/3 and Battlefield 3/4. Before Infamous came out, I didn't think it looked that incredible either from just looking at screenshots. But as soon as I got my hands on it I was blown away and still am every time I play it. When consoles are still relatively new, a lot of games can actually compete with PC games I hate to say. I'm very aware that PC hardware is way ahead of the PS4 and Xbox One but every single game that has been mentioned was released on consoles too; because, like it or not, that's where the money is and developers aren't going to look past that very often. As a result, PC games are going to generally have to be developed alongside whatever console generation it is. Sports games are the worst (although I don't know many people to play sports games on PC) and a good example of this is NBA2K14 - looks stunning on PS4 and Xbox One but the PC version...Still using the technology from the 360 and PS3 versions.

So there haven't really been too many PC games that push the technology of your PC to the brink and as such, the first true next-gen game, Infamous Second Son, looks amazing and truly next gen. Why don't some of you guys hating on it so bad actually give it a try and then come talk about it because I have no clue how you could say the Witcher 2 or Mirror's Edge (really?) looks better.

#334 Posted by MBirdy88 (8241 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@Peredith said:

Infamous Second Son is an huge scale open world game with permanent destruction. Wasn't that the argument hermits used when claiming the original Crysis looked better than other games? It's scale and destructible environments? Infamous Second Son looks far more impressive than Crysis 3. Stop kidding yourselves, Herms. And at the person saying Crysis 2 looks better, LOL.

As someone who plays Infamous... not it friggin doesn't ... you are talking crap. hell the game doesn't have tesselation and alot of other modern PC effects that are in Crysis 3. Sure its smooth, it has AA, nice particle effects ... its a massive step up for you peasants...

But its still not Crysis 3 vanilla, let alone modded.

Please if your going to babble and call people peasant's at lest get your facts straight. Infamous SS does use Tessellation, actually quite a bit of it. It also has some nice effects that are not found in Crysis 3 are any other pc game for that matter. So please STFU.

oh fucking prove it will you? show me some screenshots with it? all I see is completely flat walls, flat brick walls, flat surfaces. If it uses it, its damn subtle.

and what other effects? friggin neon lights?

Still, even IF I am wrong about tesselation, fact remains, still not better looking than Crysis 3.

are peasants so far gone that any game wiht AA, 1080p 30 fps and decent textures is suddenly graphics king? NO. it is a good looking game by any platform standard, but stop kidding yourselves.

#335 Edited by Peredith (2310 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@Peredith said:

Infamous Second Son is an huge scale open world game with permanent destruction. Wasn't that the argument hermits used when claiming the original Crysis looked better than other games? It's scale and destructible environments? Infamous Second Son looks far more impressive than Crysis 3. Stop kidding yourselves, Herms. And at the person saying Crysis 2 looks better, LOL.

As someone who plays Infamous... not it friggin doesn't ... you are talking crap. hell the game doesn't have tesselation and alot of other modern PC effects that are in Crysis 3. Sure its smooth, it has AA, nice particle effects ... its a massive step up for you peasants...

But its still not Crysis 3 vanilla, let alone modded.

Please if your going to babble and call people peasant's at lest get your facts straight. Infamous SS does use Tessellation, actually quite a bit of it. It also has some nice effects that are not found in Crysis 3 are any other pc game for that matter. So please STFU.

oh fucking prove it will you? show me some screenshots with it? all I see is completely flat walls, flat brick walls, flat surfaces. If it uses it, its damn subtle.

and what other effects? friggin neon lights?

Still, even IF I am wrong about tesselation, fact remains, still not better looking than Crysis 3.

are peasants so far gone that any game wiht AA, 1080p 30 fps and decent textures is suddenly graphics king? NO. it is a good looking game by any platform standard, but stop kidding yourselves.

#336 Edited by Peredith (2310 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@MBirdy88 said:

@Peredith said:

Infamous Second Son is an huge scale open world game with permanent destruction. Wasn't that the argument hermits used when claiming the original Crysis looked better than other games? It's scale and destructible environments? Infamous Second Son looks far more impressive than Crysis 3. Stop kidding yourselves, Herms. And at the person saying Crysis 2 looks better, LOL.

As someone who plays Infamous... not it friggin doesn't ... you are talking crap. hell the game doesn't have tesselation and alot of other modern PC effects that are in Crysis 3. Sure its smooth, it has AA, nice particle effects ... its a massive step up for you peasants...

But its still not Crysis 3 vanilla, let alone modded.

Please if your going to babble and call people peasant's at lest get your facts straight. Infamous SS does use Tessellation, actually quite a bit of it. It also has some nice effects that are not found in Crysis 3 are any other pc game for that matter. So please STFU.

oh fucking prove it will you? show me some screenshots with it? all I see is completely flat walls, flat brick walls, flat surfaces. If it uses it, its damn subtle.

and what other effects? friggin neon lights?

Still, even IF I am wrong about tesselation, fact remains, still not better looking than Crysis 3.

are peasants so far gone that any game wiht AA, 1080p 30 fps and decent textures is suddenly graphics king? NO. it is a good looking game by any platform standard, but stop kidding yourselves.

#337 Edited by scatteh316 (4927 posts) -

Second son better looking then Crys 3?

Some people need to lay off the crack...

#338 Posted by gpuking (2873 posts) -

Second Son does many things better than Crysis 3 such as being open world for starters, much bigger draw distance, more objects in the environment, complex gpu particles, much higher character poly count, persistent debris and much better animation. They're at least in the same ballpark.

#339 Edited by GoldenElementXL (3209 posts) -

@gpuking said:

Second Son does many things better than Crysis 3 such as being open world for starters, much bigger draw distance, more objects in the environment, complex gpu particles, much higher character poly count, persistent debris and much better animation. They're at least in the same ballpark.

You must not have played Crysis 3. There are areas in that game that are very wide open. And everything else you said is just a lie. When Infamous opens up, the texture quality drops which is to be expected. Look at the hardware. Console kids need to just enjoy having a great looking game. Don't make yourselves look bad with these crazy claims.














#340 Edited by Opus_Rea-333 (976 posts) -

I dont see Hermits bragging about Insanely good looking graphics that outshines Infamous easily

bad pride will bite your ass easily Ps4 owners.

#341 Edited by AM-Gamer (3941 posts) -

@MBirdy88: Do you not even know what tesselation is? Why the fuck do I need to show you screenshots when you said you have the game? Look at Delsins model the armor on the DUP agents theres loads of tesselation. And the particle system in SS makes Crysis 3 look outdated. Not to mention all the real time reflections Have you even played the game?

#342 Posted by GravityX (715 posts) -

It's awesome.

#343 Edited by Pray_to_me (2853 posts) -

Damn witcher 2 hasn't aged well. I remember thinking it was pretty impressive when I bought it back in 2011 but looking back it was about on par with uncharted 2 and 3- maybe slightly lower to be quite frank:

#344 Posted by killatwill15 (845 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Damn witcher 2 hasn't aged well. I remember thinking it was pretty impressive when I bought it back in 2011 but looking back it was about on par with uncharted 2 and 3- maybe slightly lower to be quite frank:

of only the uncharted ps4 collection rumor were true, those games are gorgeous

maybe uncharted 3 could get a rewrite, jesus Christ that game had some terrible fucking writing, maybe just cut out all of uncharted 3's dialog

#345 Edited by Tighaman (956 posts) -

while great AA 1080p is great with infamous but let not kid ourselves duplicate buildings, buildings have great AA on them but its texture on the buildings are so flat, no interaction with the puddles on the road or rain dropping, its like hes not really running on the ground at all floaty as hell hes really not part of the world vampire like no reflections, not enough variety of enemies open world same old same old enemies, a couple of bugs that will make you reset the game falling through the stage is unacceptable that means your game lack geometry , and fps hitting about 50 to below 30 at times when get going with the neon powers. Its a PRETTY game but again you need to be consistent and Ryse is to most consistent.

#346 Edited by m3dude1 (1315 posts) -

@GoldenElementXL said:

@gpuking said:

Second Son does many things better than Crysis 3 such as being open world for starters, much bigger draw distance, more objects in the environment, complex gpu particles, much higher character poly count, persistent debris and much better animation. They're at least in the same ballpark.

You must not have played Crysis 3. There are areas in that game that are very wide open. And everything else you said is just a lie. When Infamous opens up, the texture quality drops which is to be expected. Look at the hardware. Console kids need to just enjoy having a great looking game. Don't make yourselves look bad with these crazy claims.

i knew it was only a matter of time before Photoshopped bi-cubically sharpened offline crysis 3 screenshots using non in-game quality settings made an appearance.

#347 Posted by Pray_to_me (2853 posts) -

@killatwill15 said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Damn witcher 2 hasn't aged well. I remember thinking it was pretty impressive when I bought it back in 2011 but looking back it was about on par with uncharted 2 and 3- maybe slightly lower to be quite frank:

of only the uncharted ps4 collection rumor were true, those games are gorgeous

maybe uncharted 3 could get a rewrite, jesus Christ that game had some terrible fucking writing, maybe just cut out all of uncharted 3's dialog

I thought it was good till the ending which seemed phoned in

#348 Posted by nervmeister (15246 posts) -

Second Son will keep the "throne" warm up until the PC version of The Witcher 3 releases.

#349 Posted by AM-Gamer (3941 posts) -

@Tighaman: You can see Delsins reflection in the windows. The puddles react to rain drops and he can climb in every peace of geometry in the game. Yet again another troll who hasn't played the game.

#350 Edited by Tighaman (956 posts) -

@AM-Gamer: I have played the damn game I said HE doesn't react to the puddles hes not one the ground. Theres a glitch in the game where you can go through the buildings and the streets the game is HOLLOW it lacks geometry I never said anything about climbing.