Last of Us Graphics Comparison of PS3 vs PS4 Not Very Major

#51 Posted by I_can_haz (6481 posts) -
#52 Edited by lglz1337 (3022 posts) -

i will double dip TC nice try!

this is a game that got ported and using gamespot video player silly TC, don't expect it to push the console this game is not build from the ground

TLOU GOTY! stay mad

#53 Edited by freedomfreak (38238 posts) -
#54 Posted by DEadliNE-Zero0 (675 posts) -

@GTSaiyanjin2 said:

PS3 version actually looks good... gamespot did something to make the PS3 version look bad

take a look http://67.227.255.239/forum/showpost.php?p=116167016&postcount=265

Yep, I own the game on PS3 and it doesn't look like that GS video.

GS's video is fishy as hell.

Can't believe i'm agreeing with you, but yes, when i played it aswell, it didn't look this blurry. That PS3 versions looks sub-HD, and apparently TLOU was 720p on the PS3.

Hell, if someone had told me the PS4 version was the original, i'd buy it, because that much blurr is weird.

#55 Edited by AzatiS (6994 posts) -

Clarity is so obvious along with shadows and lighting. They just didnt overdo it , they could easily do so but what to ? It was already a good looking game.

Running on 1080p and 60fps with this kind of clarity is awesome .... X1 couldnt even run it like this at 720p so for lems to be so offensive towards this .... really lems ? 1080p/60fps and looks way more crispy , what the heck did you expect ? A new game ? What can you show better at that res/fps ?

#56 Posted by Pray_to_me (2736 posts) -

The whole point is that the cutscene models are now ingame so basically TLOU remastered shits on Crysis 3

#57 Edited by Telekill (4226 posts) -

I think it's funny how so many of you bad mouth rereleases on the new consoles. It's not a cash grab. It's the developer making the game accessible to those that maybe didn't have one of the previous consoles. In the case of The Last of Us, lots of people own PS4s that never owned a PS3.

If you're so against it, don't buy it. No one is twisting your arm.

#58 Posted by tormentos (16510 posts) -

@b4x said:

Yeah that looks like it's worth 50 bones...lmfao.

EDIT: People actually justified this money grab for 10 pages in a thread I made......That shit is weak sauce.

Same exact game....with less blur. The POWER!!!!

That's 50 dollars of power baby!!

Shit should be backwards compatible with that weak ass money grab showing...scums.

At least is a 2013 game that happen with Tomb Raider and several other games that arrived before the PS4 was here,how about Halo recycle crap that is on all xbox platforms.

You don't like recycle games do what i do don't buy them.

#59 Posted by scottpsfan14 (2518 posts) -
@b4x said:

Yeah that looks like it's worth 50 bones...lmfao.

EDIT: People actually justified this money grab for 10 pages in a thread I made......That shit is weak sauce.

Same exact game....with less blur. The POWER!!!!

That's 50 dollars of power baby!!

Shit should be backwards compatible with that weak ass money grab showing...scums.

B4X at it again I see. Get a grip.

#60 Posted by scottpsfan14 (2518 posts) -

@b4x: I told you neither the PS4 or XB1 have the power to emulate the PS3/360. Backwards compatability would be great, but it's not feasible.

#61 Edited by speedfog (2862 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

On paper, it is big. But when you look at it, it isn't realy impressive.

#62 Posted by scottpsfan14 (2518 posts) -
@speedfog said:

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

On paper, it is big. But when you look at it, it isn't realy impressive.

Those are cutscenes. At least wait until gameplay footage is shown.

#63 Posted by stizzal13 (558 posts) -

50 bucks for this? Are they mental?

I think it is aimed at people who haven't played the game, yet. But, if you played the game, then it is not worth it. Unless, they added a bunch of content I am not aware of.

Anyways, the improvements look good. Hopefully, the PS4 can hold a solid 60fps, but I have my doubts.

#64 Posted by handssss (1642 posts) -

@ShepardCommandr said:

50 bucks for this? Are they mental?

I think it is aimed at people who haven't played the game, yet. But, if you played the game, then it is not worth it. Unless, they added a bunch of content I am not aware of.

Anyways, the improvements look good. Hopefully, the PS4 can hold a solid 60fps, but I have my doubts.

it's a GOTY edition in terms of content. (all dlc)

#65 Posted by Pikminmaniac (8595 posts) -

That was the worst comparison video ever. Of course the cutscenes aren't going to look much different. In the original version, the visuals took a noticeable step up when it hit a cutscene so it's not surprising there isn't much difference there. We need a comparison of the gameplay to actually see the improvements.

#66 Posted by Vatusus (4229 posts) -

I recently beat TLOU for the 1st time on my PS3. Fantastic game. Really deserved all the GOTY awards imo. On the PS3 the game was uneven when it comes to graphics. Some parts looked really good, others looked washed out and somewhat average. However when the game looked good, it looked really really good. The great artsyle did help. Cant imagine how it'll look on the PS4 with 1080p/60fps. To whomever never played TLOU on the PS3, should definitely grab it for the PS4

#67 Edited by CanYouDiglt (7259 posts) -

I do not remember TLoU being that much of a blurry mess on the PS3.

#68 Edited by hoosier7 (3691 posts) -

@speedfog said:

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

On paper, it is big. But when you look at it, it isn't realy impressive.

Those are cutscenes. At least wait until gameplay footage is shown.

Pre-rendered cut scenes too iirc.

Wait for the gameplay imo.

#69 Posted by bigblunt537 (6804 posts) -

It makes me laugh when I hear people saying it's made for people who haven't played the game yet hence the $50 price tag. It is made for anyone willing to shell out $50 for the game. Naughty Dog wants as much money as possible. Not just the few that have't played before.

#70 Posted by Qixote (10648 posts) -

It's hilarious that people who already bought the PS3 game are buying it again on the PS4. Seriously, you have nothing better to do with that money?

#71 Posted by lostrib (31694 posts) -

It makes me laugh when I hear people saying it's made for people who haven't played the game yet hence the $50 price tag. It is made for anyone willing to shell out $50 for the game. Naughty Dog wants as much money as possible. Not just the few that have't played before.

Talking only new: the current PS3 version is $30 from amazon, it would then be another $20 for the Season pass or $15 just for left behind

#72 Posted by Gue1 (9157 posts) -

the best game of the last generation with over 200 GOTY making everyone mad because it's being ported only to the PS4. So what's new?

#73 Posted by lostrib (31694 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

the best game of the last generation with over 200 GOTY making everyone mad because it's being ported only to the PS4. So what's new?

why would people be mad?

#74 Posted by cainetao11 (15893 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@chikenfriedrice said:

I thought they added a bunch of shit? If it's just a resolution bump then that sucks.

I think they upgraded other aspects as well

Point is, after nearly a year of the PS4 being on the market there is still very little reason to choose a multiplat on PS4 over PS3, so unless something blows me away as far as graphical performance, res and framerate, i'm just getting the lesser PS3 version, which will most likely be lesser on the wallet too.

Especially if I can play the MP for free on PS3.

#75 Edited by Gue1 (9157 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@speedfog said:

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

On paper, it is big. But when you look at it, it isn't realy impressive.

Those are cutscenes. At least wait until gameplay footage is shown.

yeah, they always said that they were aiming on making the gameplay look like the pre-rendered, so a comparison between pre-rendered images at 1080p vs 720p will not show much differences beside looking a bit cleaner. On top of it I don't think this video comparison is even 60 frames either.

#76 Edited by Alucard_Prime (2617 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

You cannot change people's perceptions with a bunch of numbers. Some people feel there is a minor difference based on what they see with their eyes, while others feel there is a big difference. TC is just stating his opinion based on what he is seeing, that's as valid as any response, regardless of the technicality of it.

While it may seem obvious and significant to you based on a bunch of numbers(and probably what you see as well), at the end of the day what really matters is what people see and perceive when they see the game in action themselves.

Despite saying this, I do agree with you myself.....these numbers do represent a large difference technically speaking and should translate into a nice difference onscreen, a lot of times it is just too hard to see all the differences in these online compressed videos.

#77 Posted by Zero_epyon (5047 posts) -

They're comparing cutscenes. I'd like to see gameplay, since ND said that gameplay was on the level of custscenes. So comparing both cutscenes won't do much.

#78 Edited by parkurtommo (25441 posts) -

Looks like a big difference to me. High resolution textures and 60 fps+1080p!

#79 Posted by AM-Gamer (3326 posts) -

Funny thing is hermits pay 4x for the cost of a console for there rigs to see these types of advantages. The sad thing is they usually show a much smaller difference then this.

#80 Edited by pelvist (4468 posts) -

If i cared enough to buy this game twice then id be hoping the biggest difference in the two versions to be that the AI isnt stupid and buggy in the PS4 version.

#81 Edited by B4X (2648 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

Yeah that looks like it's worth 50 bones...lmfao.

EDIT: People actually justified this money grab for 10 pages in a thread I made......That shit is weak sauce.

Same exact game....with less blur. The POWER!!!!

That's 50 dollars of power baby!!

Shit should be backwards compatible with that weak ass money grab showing...scums.

My God, you are stupid. If you are rebuying this, that's one thing. But if it's for the first time, it's more than worth it. The PS3 version is 30 bucks still and the DLC is 10-15 bucks. This comes with all of that and enhanced graphics/frame rate. Try harder.

And that is a pretty big difference in graphics.

Used at Gamefly $25+10 dlc =35

That is a hack job. It's the same game. If you have never owned it. More power to ya. Buy it.

There is nothing in that comparison that makes me say...OMG BBQ sauce, that shit is 50 dollar next-gen right there baby!!! It's a money grab. No need to white knight it. It is what it is. A fucking joke on the gaming industry. IN My opinion.

#82 Posted by Chutebox (36210 posts) -

@StrongDeadlift: Ya, as others have already posted...you can go away now.

#83 Posted by Chutebox (36210 posts) -

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

#84 Edited by Wasdie (49335 posts) -

@Alucard_Prime said:

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

You cannot change people's perceptions with a bunch of numbers. Some people feel there is a minor difference based on what they see with their eyes, while others feel there is a big difference. TC is just stating his opinion based on what he is seeing, that's as valid as any response, regardless of the technicality of it.

While it may seem obvious and significant to you based on a bunch of numbers(and probably what you see as well), at the end of the day what really matters is what people see and perceive when they see the game in action themselves.

Despite saying this, I do agree with you myself.....these numbers do represent a large difference technically speaking and should translate into a nice difference onscreen, a lot of times it is just too hard to see all the differences in these online compressed videos.

It just proves diminishing returns. This is also why the current gen console aren't "weak" and will be fine for the next few years. Diminishing returns has hit gaming hard. The difference of throwing a $500 GPU into a PS4/Xbox One and jacking up the price to $700-800 wouldn't be worth it as the benefits would almost solely be in framerate and resolution, not a massive improvement in overall image quality. Rendering and assets wouldn't change much, you would just get more frames and a slightly higher resolution.

#85 Posted by faizan_faizan (7701 posts) -

LOL YouTube.

#86 Posted by B4X (2648 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

#87 Posted by Chutebox (36210 posts) -

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

#88 Posted by B4X (2648 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

Am I?

You're the one that just said a used game and new game are somehow different? The game was on sale at gamefly last week for 15 dollars used. At 15 it must be totally different? /amiright?

Keep insulting. You're on fire baby.

#89 Posted by B4X (2648 posts) -

LOL YouTube.

YouTube would degrade both games equally. I understand what you're saying though.

#90 Posted by Chutebox (36210 posts) -

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

Am I?

You're the one that just said a used game and new game are somehow different? The game was on sale at gamefly last week for 15 dollars used. At 15 it must be totally different? /amiright?

Keep insulting. You're on fire baby.

So it wasn't intentional? That's sad.

#91 Posted by scottpsfan14 (2518 posts) -
@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

I swear this is just B4X. This is him. A complete idiot lol.

He'll flag me now thou :(

#92 Posted by NFJSupreme (5023 posts) -

it sucks for you guys who have already bought and played the inferior version of this game. Me i have yet to play this game and will be glad to pay only $50 for the definitive version. Good things come to those who wait. I saw the remastered version of TLOU coming from a mile away which is why I skipped out on it last year.

#93 Posted by scottpsfan14 (2518 posts) -

@Chutebox: He also says that SONY had no excuse not including PS3 backward compatibility. Not considering that the PS4 would struggle to emulate PS2 fully nevermind PS3.

#94 Edited by NFJSupreme (5023 posts) -

@speedfog said:

@Wasdie said:

Not very major? Not only is it a slight increase to the assets and the rendering (lighting/shading) it's also rendering at 1080p60.

The PS3 version runs at 720p and 30fps with frequent dips.

1280x720 = 921,600

1920x1080 = 2,073,600

921,600 x 30 = 27,648,000 pixels per second

2,073,600 x 60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second

That's a 450% increase in the amount of pixels rendered within 1 second. Then you have to include noticeably better assets and rendering used.

That's not a "small" increase.

On paper, it is big. But when you look at it, it isn't realy impressive.

60fps vs 30fps is though.

#95 Edited by Chutebox (36210 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

I swear this is just B4X. This is him. A complete idiot lol.

He'll flag me now thou :(

Heh, he doesn't strike me as someone to use the flag button.

#96 Edited by Chutebox (36210 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

I swear this is just B4X. This is him. A complete idiot lol.

He'll flag me now thou :(

It's ok for x1 though ^^

Seroiusly though, I don't care about that anymore. It'll raise the price of the systems too much. Pass. 360 and PS3 will be available for a very long time and be much, much cheaper.

#97 Edited by scottpsfan14 (2518 posts) -

it sucks for you guys who have already bought and played the inferior version of this game. Me i have yet to play this game and will be glad to pay only $50 for the definitive version. Good things come to those who wait. I saw the remastered version of TLOU coming from a mile away which is why I skipped out on it last year.

I think SONY are looking into an upgrade from PS3 version to PS4 for a discount price. Not too sure though.

#98 Posted by B4X (2648 posts) -

@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

I swear this is just B4X. This is him. A complete idiot lol.

He'll flag me now thou :(

Your insult campaign with zero insight on anything I say. Is getting old. It's everyday like clock-work.

You need to find a new hobby. I would pull the same immature stunts. I'm not a twunt though?

I flag no-one. You just love t3h B4X. You're like that girl in school always irritating me, only secretly wanting to swallow my load.

All in due time Baby. There's plenty for all you bitches.

#99 Edited by B4X (2648 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@b4x said:

Yeah that looks like it's worth 50 bones...lmfao.

EDIT: People actually justified this money grab for 10 pages in a thread I made......That shit is weak sauce.

Same exact game....with less blur. The POWER!!!!

That's 50 dollars of power baby!!

Shit should be backwards compatible with that weak ass money grab showing...scums.

At least is a 2013 game that happen with Tomb Raider and several other games that arrived before the PS4 was here,how about Halo recycle crap that is on all xbox platforms.

You don't like recycle games do what i do don't buy them.

Here is a thread I made... Stating the exact same things you just said. You have no case.

Read and bump it.. It's my views on this BS.

#100 Posted by Chutebox (36210 posts) -
@b4x said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@Chutebox said:

@b4x said:

@Chutebox said:

@b4x:

Comparing a new game price with used game? B4X logic!

Used and New = Different game.

I wasn't aware. Thanks.

You're being intentionally dense. Or so I hope.

I swear this is just B4X. This is him. A complete idiot lol.

He'll flag me now thou :(

Your insult campaign with zero insight on anything I say. Is getting old. It's everyday like clock-work.

You need to find a new hobby. I would pull the same immature stunts. I'm not a twunt though?

I flag no-one. You just love t3h B4X. You're like that girl in school always irritating me, only secretly wanting to swallow my load.

All in due time Baby. There's plenty for all you bitches.

You um...your whole post was just that bud lol