Metro Redux best looking multiplat?

  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by uninspiredcup (8662 posts) -

Personally, I would say it's better looking than any Xbone or PS4 exclusive. But multiplatform wise, is this king when it comes to visual parity?

#2 Posted by MonsieurX (30256 posts) -

But will it sell better on PS4?

#3 Edited by uninspiredcup (8662 posts) -
@MonsieurX said:

But will it sell better on PS4?

A very good qeastion. The series has sold well and predominantly on pc.

#4 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -

I don't think it looks that much better than the original versions on PC. I can't see a difference. But I'd say it's still among the best looking FPS games out there.

#5 Edited by gpuking (2873 posts) -

A lot of PS4 games easily shit on it in graphics actually, for current released multiplat even Thief PS4 looks slightly better.

#6 Posted by _Matt_ (8911 posts) -

But does it have teh foliage?

#7 Posted by MiiiiV (479 posts) -
@gpuking said:

A lot of PS4 games easily shit on it in graphics actually, for current released multiplat even Thief PS4 looks slightly better.

How many of those better looking ps4 games run at 1080p at a stable 60 fps? Which Metro LL redux seems to do. A game with half the frame rate at the same resolution basically has twice the amount of hardware resources available for graphics and other stuff. Considering the premises that Metro LL redux is running under, it's probably the most impressive multiplat on the ps4 right now.

#8 Posted by parkurtommo (27079 posts) -

@gpuking said:

A lot of PS4 games easily shit on it in graphics actually, for current released multiplat even Thief PS4 looks slightly better.

You haven't played it if you actually think that.

#9 Posted by m3dude1 (1315 posts) -

destiny looks better, so does TLOU remaster if that qualifies as a multiplatform. pc version of black flag w/ txaa looks better. metro doesnt hold a candle to the top graphic exclusives.

#10 Posted by gpuking (2873 posts) -

@miiiiv

Yeah well since the topic is specifically about best looking so the only thing matters is what it looks like on screen. I'm not denying how much better Metro would look if it's 30fps tho, but right now it's not even close to at the top.

#11 Posted by gameofthering (10259 posts) -

Did they finish patching back in all the missing graphical settings yet?

#12 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (1202 posts) -

I really don't enjoy the game on PC....so I don't really care how it looks on PS4.

#13 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16612 posts) -

@_Matt_ said:

But does it have teh foliage?

Sure, there is some foliage

Most of it died out though, because of the radiation

#14 Edited by Snugenz (11888 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@gpuking said:

A lot of PS4 games easily shit on it in graphics actually, for current released multiplat even Thief PS4 looks slightly better.

You haven't played it if you actually think that.

Even if he had played it, he'd still say a PS game looks better (even when they most certainly don't), it's gpuking.

#15 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (7846 posts) -

@gpuking said:

A lot of PS4 games easily shit on it in graphics actually, for current released multiplat even Thief PS4 looks slightly better.

Too bad Thief sucks.

#16 Posted by gpuking (2873 posts) -

I played both original 2033 and Last Light on PC at max settings mind you. The models look atrocious to today's standard, no PBR, no real time reflection, no scale, last gen assets all over the place. Lighting, shadowing, textures and nvidia phyX are pretty good tho. But it ain't no best multi, much less beating exclusives.

#17 Edited by m3dude1 (1315 posts) -

@gpuking said:

I played both original 2033 and Last Light on PC at max settings mind you. The models look atrocious to today's standard, no PBR, no real time reflection, no scale, last gen assets all over the place. Lighting, shadowing, textures and nvidia phyX are pretty good tho. But it ain't no best multi, much less beating exclusives.

yeah the humans look like smoothed wax dolls. the animation is beyond atrocious as well

#18 Posted by parkurtommo (27079 posts) -

@gpuking said:

I played both original 2033 and Last Light on PC at max settings mind you. The models look atrocious to today's standard, no PBR, no real time reflection, no scale, last gen assets all over the place. Lighting, shadowing, textures and nvidia phyX are pretty good tho. But it ain't no best multi, much less beating exclusives.

Ugh.

I feel like using adblock to block users again, anyone know if that still works with this new interface?

#19 Posted by MiiiiV (479 posts) -
@gpuking said:

@miiiiv

Yeah well since the topic is specifically about best looking so the only thing matters is what it looks like on screen. I'm not denying how much better Metro would look if it's 30fps tho, but right now it's not even close to at the top.

60 fps makes a huge difference of how a game feels and looks in motion, it's a lot smoother. And it should be taken into consideration, not just graphical assets alone. If only considering graphical and other assets, the best looking games this gen will probably run at 800-900p at 30 fps with frequent dips.

#20 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -
@miiiiv said:
@gpuking said:

@miiiiv

Yeah well since the topic is specifically about best looking so the only thing matters is what it looks like on screen. I'm not denying how much better Metro would look if it's 30fps tho, but right now it's not even close to at the top.

60 fps makes a huge difference of how a game feels and looks in motion, it's a lot smoother. And it should be taken into consideration, not just graphical assets alone. If only considering graphical and other assets, the best looking games this gen will probably run at 800-900p at 30 fps with frequent dips.

60fps is not graphics. FPS debate is moot when arguing specifically graphics. The only time it should be considered is when a game looks better running in 30fps than another running in 60fps on the same console. On PC you can throw as much ardware at the game as possible so framerate shouldn't be a factor, rather graphics fidelity itself.

So basically, KZSF runs in 1080p 30-40 fps on PS4. Metro runs at 1080p 60fps on the same hardware. So by logic, KZSF has to be the more graphical game right? Well.. It isn't that cut and dry. The devs of M: Redux said themselves they could have fit more graphics into 1080p 60fps on PS4 had they gotten more time. I don't believe for one second this game is maxing out PS4. They don't believe it. They arent even putting all the GPU functions to full use. They have algorithms to improve also. They said they are on making a game for next gen from the ground up and will definatly get more coding time and will use more modern GPU rendering. So a full next gen experience.

Another way to scope what I'm saying is by comparing TLOU Remastered and Uncharted 4 when it comes out. Both are 1080p 60fps. But if you think for one second that there won't be a massive improvement visually with Uncharted 4 then you are in for a rude awakening. Despite the fact that TLOU R has drops to 50fps. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if UC4 is pushing several times the polys and higher res textures and much better effects to screen while still maintaining 60fps better than TLOU Remastered. Since they are giving this game both time and money especially for the PS4 from the ground up. Engines improve. Methods become more efficient while being technically superior in every way. Game graphics is not static. Not cut and dry at all. That's why Watch Dogs runs at 900p 30fps on PS4 despite being a cross gen game while Infamous SS runs at 1080p 30-40 fps while pushing more polygons and using fully next gen assets.

#21 Posted by GamingElite021 (80 posts) -

without a doubt it is hanky.

#22 Posted by _Matt_ (8911 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@_Matt_ said:

But does it have teh foliage?

Sure, there is some foliage

Most of it died out though, because of the radiation

Ahh yes, of course, I had not really thought of that.

#23 Posted by MiiiiV (479 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:
@miiiiv said:
@gpuking said:

@miiiiv

Yeah well since the topic is specifically about best looking so the only thing matters is what it looks like on screen. I'm not denying how much better Metro would look if it's 30fps tho, but right now it's not even close to at the top.

60 fps makes a huge difference of how a game feels and looks in motion, it's a lot smoother. And it should be taken into consideration, not just graphical assets alone. If only considering graphical and other assets, the best looking games this gen will probably run at 800-900p at 30 fps with frequent dips.

60fps is not graphics. FPS debate is moot when arguing specifically graphics. The only time it should be considered is when a game looks better running in 30fps than another running in 60fps on the same console. On PC you can throw as much ardware at the game as possible so framerate shouldn't be a factor, rather graphics fidelity itself.

So basically, KZSF runs in 1080p 30-40 fps on PS4. Metro runs at 1080p 60fps on the same hardware. So by logic, KZSF has to be the more graphical game right? Well.. It isn't that cut and dry. The devs of M: Redux said themselves they could have fit more graphics into 1080p 60fps on PS4 had they gotten more time. I don't believe for one second this game is maxing out PS4. They don't believe it. They arent even putting all the GPU functions to full use. They have algorithms to improve also. They said they are on making a game for next gen from the ground up and will definatly get more coding time and will use more modern GPU rendering. So a full next gen experience.

Another way to scope what I'm saying is by comparing TLOU Remastered and Uncharted 4 when it comes out. Both are 1080p 60fps. But if you think for one second that there won't be a massive improvement visually with Uncharted 4 then you are in for a rude awakening. Despite the fact that TLOU R has drops to 50fps. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if UC4 is pushing several times the polys and higher res textures and much better effects to screen while still maintaining 60fps better than TLOU Remastered. Since they are giving this game both time and money especially for the PS4 from the ground up. Engines improve. Methods become more efficient while being technically superior in every way. Game graphics is not static. Not cut and dry at all. That's why Watch Dogs runs at 900p 30fps on PS4 despite being a cross gen game while Infamous SS runs at 1080p 30-40 fps while pushing more polygons and using fully next gen assets.

Yes, KZSF was made from the ground up for the ps4 and therefore makes better use of the system than early multiplats, it runs at 30-40 fps with a few dips below 30 fps. And the multiplayer runs at 960 interlaced x1080, I believe, at an average of ~45fps. Things will get better in the future, but this is not like the ps3 when early games only ran on the PPE and the gpu and all the six SPEs were left unused. Ps4 games will get better but don't expect the same level of improvement as the ps3 had over the years. Early ps4 games are taking much better advantage of the hardware than early ps3 games did respectively, mainly because the ps4 is much easier for developers to work with.
Could KZSF SP run at a rock solid 60 fps without sacrificing some graphics or could the the MP run at full 1080p at the same frame rate, ~45 fps average, with more optimization. This would require roughly a 100% more performance to achieve. My guess is no, that it's not possible but that the Guerilla Games could keep the respective resolutions and frame rates and ad many more things like rendering effects and physics as optimizations become better over the years. As for Uncharted 4, it will look really great no doubt but i think Naughty Dog will sacrifice 60 fps for better graphics as the have been doing in pretty much every game they made on the ps3.

#24 Posted by Mr-Powers (332 posts) -

No.

#25 Posted by jg4xchamp (48133 posts) -

It doesn't look better than Metro: LL on PC proper.

#26 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16439 posts) -

I thought Metro 2033 was a fantastic looking game when it came out. I honestly didn't get all the praise for Last Lights visuals, they don't have the quality of presentation like in 2033.

#27 Posted by MetalGearJoel (14 posts) -

It's up there. Played 2033 a few years ago on PC, but wasn't a stable 60 FPS. Really enjoying Redux on the PS4.

#28 Posted by RoboCopISJesus (1408 posts) -

Yeah nothing on consoles really looks as good as Metro-Reduc on PC with that new patch that came out.

#29 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -
@miiiiv said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@miiiiv said:
@gpuking said:

@miiiiv

Yeah well since the topic is specifically about best looking so the only thing matters is what it looks like on screen. I'm not denying how much better Metro would look if it's 30fps tho, but right now it's not even close to at the top.

60 fps makes a huge difference of how a game feels and looks in motion, it's a lot smoother. And it should be taken into consideration, not just graphical assets alone. If only considering graphical and other assets, the best looking games this gen will probably run at 800-900p at 30 fps with frequent dips.

60fps is not graphics. FPS debate is moot when arguing specifically graphics. The only time it should be considered is when a game looks better running in 30fps than another running in 60fps on the same console. On PC you can throw as much ardware at the game as possible so framerate shouldn't be a factor, rather graphics fidelity itself.

So basically, KZSF runs in 1080p 30-40 fps on PS4. Metro runs at 1080p 60fps on the same hardware. So by logic, KZSF has to be the more graphical game right? Well.. It isn't that cut and dry. The devs of M: Redux said themselves they could have fit more graphics into 1080p 60fps on PS4 had they gotten more time. I don't believe for one second this game is maxing out PS4. They don't believe it. They arent even putting all the GPU functions to full use. They have algorithms to improve also. They said they are on making a game for next gen from the ground up and will definatly get more coding time and will use more modern GPU rendering. So a full next gen experience.

Another way to scope what I'm saying is by comparing TLOU Remastered and Uncharted 4 when it comes out. Both are 1080p 60fps. But if you think for one second that there won't be a massive improvement visually with Uncharted 4 then you are in for a rude awakening. Despite the fact that TLOU R has drops to 50fps. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if UC4 is pushing several times the polys and higher res textures and much better effects to screen while still maintaining 60fps better than TLOU Remastered. Since they are giving this game both time and money especially for the PS4 from the ground up. Engines improve. Methods become more efficient while being technically superior in every way. Game graphics is not static. Not cut and dry at all. That's why Watch Dogs runs at 900p 30fps on PS4 despite being a cross gen game while Infamous SS runs at 1080p 30-40 fps while pushing more polygons and using fully next gen assets.

Yes, KZSF was made from the ground up for the ps4 and therefore makes better use of the system than early multiplats, it runs at 30-40 fps with a few dips below 30 fps. And the multiplayer runs at 960 interlaced x1080, I believe, at an average of ~45fps. Things will get better in the future, but this is not like the ps3 when early games only ran on the PPE and the gpu and all the six SPEs were left unused. Ps4 games will get better but don't expect the same level of improvement as the ps3 had over the years. Early ps4 games are taking much better advantage of the hardware than early ps3 games did respectively, mainly because the ps4 is much easier for developers to work with.

Could KZSF SP run at a rock solid 60 fps without sacrificing some graphics or could the the MP run at full 1080p at the same frame rate, ~45 fps average, with more optimization. This would require roughly a 100% more performance to achieve. My guess is no, that it's not possible but that the Guerilla Games could keep the respective resolutions and frame rates and ad many more things like rendering effects and physics as optimizations become better over the years. As for Uncharted 4, it will look really great no doubt but i think Naughty Dog will sacrifice 60 fps for better graphics as the have been doing in pretty much every game they made on the ps3.

Yeah the SPE usage was later on for sure in PS3 games. But then look at Tomb Raider Legend on 360. It was essentially a cross gen game with extra shaders added on. You know, like BF4 is on PS4 etc. And TRL ran at 720p 25fps at what looked like max settings on PC. Now the 360 boasted a PowerPC CPU that was triple core. Yeah, some games early on didn't use all 3 cores, and they hadn't tapped fully into the 240 GFLOP GPU at the time too. But also, TRL wasn't using the 360 GPU full rendering capabilities. That's why TR 2013 looks a gen ahead of TRL on the same console while performing even better. The same will be true for Uncharted 4 on PS4 compared to TLOU Remastered or an Uncharted collection if they release it. Console development works like that. There are significant jumps every generation. PS4 still has to be learned. Yeah, people understand x86 architecture, and multicore utilization now. But they still have to spend time working out the GPU's perks, better algorithms, and more efficient management of memory as time goes on. And then there is ways of utilizing GPGPU on PS4 to enhance physics in later game worlds. GCN GPU's are more complex and feature rich than the RSX/Xenos. There are things developers weren't even granted access to with Keplar/GCN GPU's on PC's for years due to crappy PC graphics drivers and API's. They are free to find out the perks of the hardware now with these consoles. Sadly PC can never get such development but then who cares when you can just throw big hardware at any game that comes their way? What matters is the fact that PC's have had the GPU's to run games like The Order since 2011 but have been stuck with 360 ports with added effects. Yeah you can talk scale, but as I've explained, it's whats being rendered by the GPU at any given time that defines how 'advanced' something is, regardless of scale.

Listen, ND have said 60fps. All they have been tweeting is how much better their games are in 60fps. And how it's the future of all their PS4 games. If they go 30fps now, they are gonna look stupid. Halo 5 is rumored to already look like the CGI cutscenes in Halo 4 running at 1080p 60fps on XB1. That is actually physically impossible, but I think they mean superficially. It will be like The Order where it fools people into thinking it's prerendered CGI.

Here's the thing. Just watch what happens. Halo 5, Uncharted 4, The Order, Quantum Break, are all going to look amazing and run very well on what is said to be low end PC hardware. If that isn't proof of what tailoring a game to a single spec can do then I don't know what is. I hope some of these release a tech sheet showing the poly counts and rendering tech that's going on in these games to paint a better picture of just what's going on. I'm actually shocked that people still say BF4/Crysis 3 on max is beyond what the PS4 will ever do. It's crazy just how far out they are. Again, Tomb Raider Legend 2006 was 720p 30fps with frequent drops. Was a cross gen game. Wasn't representative of what 360 games were to look like in future now was it?

I'm more enthusiastic about these consoles because I know just what these consoles are going to allow for real time graphics across all platforms. And for some dumb reason, when devs say the same thing, hermits always say "they are just trying to sell a product". But they are actually missing what the devs are trying to say. We are talking high end PC game textures, shadows, effects being standard in console games for a start. No more jaggy shadows what we have seen since Uncharted 1. We are talking about bigger and richer/dense worlds. Better character models and animations of all moving objects. PBR. Better physics as standard. Hopefully better AI in future games. All this is now possible on all platforms in gen 8 (except for Wii U). Don't be skeptical based on what you see on PC. Game development gets better. People are just trapped in the mindset of "low end PC hardware". Consoles are different. It's not a myth.

#30 Posted by gpuking (2873 posts) -

You're doing lord's work scott, I fully concur to what you say. Hermits are in for a rude awakening if they refuse to believe these consoles wont improve substantially over the years. Especially PS4's relatively unoptimized gpgpu function in the early launch titles. We should only look at how much better UC4 and The Order's media looked compared to KZ and Infamous to get a few ideas. People say PS4's easy programmable hardware leads to early tap out is bogus, if anything modern gpus like GCN would allow even more fancy graphics to be squeezed out due to gpu compute. UC4 is already leaps and bounds better looking than anything out there and coming up in a pure graphics aspect.

#31 Posted by Snugenz (11888 posts) -

@gpuking said:

You're doing lord's work scott, I fully concur to what you say. Hermits are in for a rude awakening if they refuse to believe these consoles wont improve substantially over the years. Especially PS4's relatively unoptimized gpgpu function in the early launch titles. We should only look at how much better UC4 and The Order's media looked compared to KZ and Infamous to get a few ideas. People say PS4's easy programmable hardware leads to early tap out is bogus, if anything modern gpus like GCN would allow even more fancy graphics to be squeezed out due to gpu compute. UC4 is already leaps and bounds better looking than anything out there and coming up in a pure graphics aspect.

Just wait...

#32 Edited by dakan45 (18614 posts) -

@gpuking: am sorry i couldnt resist, thief 4 runs like UTTER CRAP on ps4, ahahhah so much for da glorious power of ps4.

Anyway crysis 3 on pc destroys everything

"these consoles wont improve substantially over the years."

They wont

long story short

Pcs with similar specs to consoles run games just as well if not better.

Next gen hardware which is laughable to call tablet cpus and apus "next gen"are weak and they dont have some new architecture to master over time

Obviously graphics gonna look amazing to you, you were stuck with crappy trashboxes for 10 year, by after 2-3 years the next gen consoles will stop improving and they gonna be pretty much maxed out.

#33 Edited by AM-Gamer (3936 posts) -

@dakan45: According to the interview at digital foundry, the dev of Metro says they will. He even said that we could see the consoles double the performance of a similar speced pc. It's hard not to take his word over a rabbid butthurt hermit.

You are also a fool if you think these consoles will last 10 years. Both consoles were far cheaper to make then there last gen predecessors. I wouldn't be surprised if we see new consoles in 4 years. Now that they stuck with the X86 format backwards compatibility should be no problem for the next consoles. This would make the transition to the next consoles seamless for both developers and consumers.

#34 Posted by Caseytappy (2141 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p said:

@gpuking said:

A lot of PS4 games easily shit on it in graphics actually, for current released multiplat even Thief PS4 looks slightly better.

Too bad Thief sucks.

And it sucks at 16 fps a lot of the time !

#35 Edited by dakan45 (18614 posts) -

@AM-Gamer: That was in 2013 before they use the hardware to actually make games. He said:

",you just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware.'

Keypoints here being

"a comparable PC"

and "fixed platform and low-level access to hardware"

So basicly the comparison is a 400$ pc with a tablet jaguar cpu or an APU as powerfull as ps4.

If you go and check benchmarks you will see that a pc with similar specs runs games just as well as the console. The assumption here is that a console will run games better in the future compared to that oudated pc due to being one single spec with low level acess to hardware.

Pc is getting low level acess with mantle and dx12 and apart from that as proven due to the similar architecture, the pc versions arent bad ports so perfomance is very similar.

Metro 2033 run like utter crap, especially on dx9 that the whole "low level access" was practicly nonexistant. Metro LL run far better with dx11 it was closer to "low level access" and i am saying it like this so you peseants can understand it.

Long story short pc had bad perfomance due to ports from a console with diffirent architecture and bad api. Now those things are gone so games just run better.

In the long run you NEVER gonna get 2x the perfomance because what that implies is running a game on 30 fps on pc at 720p with crap graphics and running it 60 fps 1080p with amazing graphics on ps4..on xbone? AHHAHHAHA that thing is a joke.

The consoles in the past were powerfull and they learned how to maximize their perfomance over 10 years by throwing millions in research. The new consoles are already weak and outdated and there is not that much to learn, as you yourself said there isnt enough time either since they are not gonna last 10 years.

It was always like that, when consoles came out the first year they were not utilized. The second year they got some "next gen" graphics going. The third year they were fully utilized, by the 4th year they were behing pc games and by the 5fh year the graphics look like crap. In 2011 bf3 came out LEAD version on ps3 and it run on LOW pc settings. Prior that metro 2033 came out and it also looked like it run on low settings on consoles. The diffirence here is that dice actually optimized their games for pc, while metro 2033 needed more power due to the developers not being able to optimize it as well without a low level acess api. Now pc has that so ubifail can stop messing up ports. With proper optimization on pc "console optimization" is a myth really. But you cant expect a variety of diffirent hardware to perfom on a game the same as as fixed hardware that wa apaprently "optimized" for that platform to run under 30 fps at times.

So if running on low under 30 fps is "optimization" then pc can do it too.

As for who is the "fool" here.... thats the consumers, but if someone told them "hey guys 4 years have passed time to buy a new console because we made our money back and its time to move on." i wouldnt blame them if they were furious since they bought them with the belief they be set for 10 yeasr and run games better than pcs which is a huge lie.

These new consoles are not the same jump as ps3/x360 and wont last as long. Personally i dont think there will be another console generation in 5 years everyone will use cloud streaming.

But hey since you like quoting people

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-06-xbox-one-will-last-conservatively-10-years-says-microsoft

Now why they said that?

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/next-gen-will-be-the-last-says-god-of-war-creator/1100-6382490/

exactly.

#36 Edited by MiiiiV (479 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:
@miiiiv said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@miiiiv said:
@gpuking said:

@miiiiv

Yeah well since the topic is specifically about best looking so the only thing matters is what it looks like on screen. I'm not denying how much better Metro would look if it's 30fps tho, but right now it's not even close to at the top.

60 fps makes a huge difference of how a game feels and looks in motion, it's a lot smoother. And it should be taken into consideration, not just graphical assets alone. If only considering graphical and other assets, the best looking games this gen will probably run at 800-900p at 30 fps with frequent dips.

60fps is not graphics. FPS debate is moot when arguing specifically graphics. The only time it should be considered is when a game looks better running in 30fps than another running in 60fps on the same console. On PC you can throw as much ardware at the game as possible so framerate shouldn't be a factor, rather graphics fidelity itself.

So basically, KZSF runs in 1080p 30-40 fps on PS4. Metro runs at 1080p 60fps on the same hardware. So by logic, KZSF has to be the more graphical game right? Well.. It isn't that cut and dry. The devs of M: Redux said themselves they could have fit more graphics into 1080p 60fps on PS4 had they gotten more time. I don't believe for one second this game is maxing out PS4. They don't believe it. They arent even putting all the GPU functions to full use. They have algorithms to improve also. They said they are on making a game for next gen from the ground up and will definatly get more coding time and will use more modern GPU rendering. So a full next gen experience.

Another way to scope what I'm saying is by comparing TLOU Remastered and Uncharted 4 when it comes out. Both are 1080p 60fps. But if you think for one second that there won't be a massive improvement visually with Uncharted 4 then you are in for a rude awakening. Despite the fact that TLOU R has drops to 50fps. In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if UC4 is pushing several times the polys and higher res textures and much better effects to screen while still maintaining 60fps better than TLOU Remastered. Since they are giving this game both time and money especially for the PS4 from the ground up. Engines improve. Methods become more efficient while being technically superior in every way. Game graphics is not static. Not cut and dry at all. That's why Watch Dogs runs at 900p 30fps on PS4 despite being a cross gen game while Infamous SS runs at 1080p 30-40 fps while pushing more polygons and using fully next gen assets.

Yes, KZSF was made from the ground up for the ps4 and therefore makes better use of the system than early multiplats, it runs at 30-40 fps with a few dips below 30 fps. And the multiplayer runs at 960 interlaced x1080, I believe, at an average of ~45fps. Things will get better in the future, but this is not like the ps3 when early games only ran on the PPE and the gpu and all the six SPEs were left unused. Ps4 games will get better but don't expect the same level of improvement as the ps3 had over the years. Early ps4 games are taking much better advantage of the hardware than early ps3 games did respectively, mainly because the ps4 is much easier for developers to work with.

Could KZSF SP run at a rock solid 60 fps without sacrificing some graphics or could the the MP run at full 1080p at the same frame rate, ~45 fps average, with more optimization. This would require roughly a 100% more performance to achieve. My guess is no, that it's not possible but that the Guerilla Games could keep the respective resolutions and frame rates and ad many more things like rendering effects and physics as optimizations become better over the years. As for Uncharted 4, it will look really great no doubt but i think Naughty Dog will sacrifice 60 fps for better graphics as the have been doing in pretty much every game they made on the ps3.

Yeah the SPE usage was later on for sure in PS3 games. But then look at Tomb Raider Legend on 360. It was essentially a cross gen game with extra shaders added on. You know, like BF4 is on PS4 etc. And TRL ran at 720p 25fps at what looked like max settings on PC. Now the 360 boasted a PowerPC CPU that was triple core. Yeah, some games early on didn't use all 3 cores, and they hadn't tapped fully into the 240 GFLOP GPU at the time too. But also, TRL wasn't using the 360 GPU full rendering capabilities. That's why TR 2013 looks a gen ahead of TRL on the same console while performing even better. The same will be true for Uncharted 4 on PS4 compared to TLOU Remastered or an Uncharted collection if they release it. Console development works like that. There are significant jumps every generation. PS4 still has to be learned. Yeah, people understand x86 architecture, and multicore utilization now. But they still have to spend time working out the GPU's perks, better algorithms, and more efficient management of memory as time goes on. And then there is ways of utilizing GPGPU on PS4 to enhance physics in later game worlds. GCN GPU's are more complex and feature rich than the RSX/Xenos. There are things developers weren't even granted access to with Keplar/GCN GPU's on PC's for years due to crappy PC graphics drivers and API's. They are free to find out the perks of the hardware now with these consoles. Sadly PC can never get such development but then who cares when you can just throw big hardware at any game that comes their way? What matters is the fact that PC's have had the GPU's to run games like The Order since 2011 but have been stuck with 360 ports with added effects. Yeah you can talk scale, but as I've explained, it's whats being rendered by the GPU at any given time that defines how 'advanced' something is, regardless of scale.

Listen, ND have said 60fps. All they have been tweeting is how much better their games are in 60fps. And how it's the future of all their PS4 games. If they go 30fps now, they are gonna look stupid. Halo 5 is rumored to already look like the CGI cutscenes in Halo 4 running at 1080p 60fps on XB1. That is actually physically impossible, but I think they mean superficially. It will be like The Order where it fools people into thinking it's prerendered CGI.

Here's the thing. Just watch what happens. Halo 5, Uncharted 4, The Order, Quantum Break, are all going to look amazing and run very well on what is said to be low end PC hardware. If that isn't proof of what tailoring a game to a single spec can do then I don't know what is. I hope some of these release a tech sheet showing the poly counts and rendering tech that's going on in these games to paint a better picture of just what's going on. I'm actually shocked that people still say BF4/Crysis 3 on max is beyond what the PS4 will ever do. It's crazy just how far out they are. Again, Tomb Raider Legend 2006 was 720p 30fps with frequent drops. Was a cross gen game. Wasn't representative of what 360 games were to look like in future now was it?

I'm more enthusiastic about these consoles because I know just what these consoles are going to allow for real time graphics across all platforms. And for some dumb reason, when devs say the same thing, hermits always say "they are just trying to sell a product". But they are actually missing what the devs are trying to say. We are talking high end PC game textures, shadows, effects being standard in console games for a start. No more jaggy shadows what we have seen since Uncharted 1. We are talking about bigger and richer/dense worlds. Better character models and animations of all moving objects. PBR. Better physics as standard. Hopefully better AI in future games. All this is now possible on all platforms in gen 8 (except for Wii U). Don't be skeptical based on what you see on PC. Game development gets better. People are just trapped in the mindset of "low end PC hardware". Consoles are different. It's not a myth.

Well I share your enthusiasm to what we will see in the future both on consoles and PCs. And many ps4 games are already more advanced at their core than these multiplats, like you are saying. But that doesn't mean that the ps4 could run some of the existing pc games at 1080p max settings at stable 60 fps, it simply lacks the power. Much like the late ps3 games look better than any 2006/2007 pc games (except for one or two) but the ps3 could never run those games at the same level that high end PCs of 2006/2007 did, even it it had more memory, it lacks the power.
I don't doubt that future games will look a lot better on the consoles however and that the ps4 will outperform a similarly powerful pc (a low end cpu and a hd 7850 OC) there is still much untapped potential but like I said the improvement will not be as big over the years as it was for the ps3. I hardly believe anyone thinks otherwise.

#37 Posted by sukraj (22800 posts) -

Metro Redux especially Metro 2033 looks so much better than the 360 version of the game everything from the graphics to better textures and more particle effects look better on current gen.

#38 Edited by 04dcarraher (19597 posts) -

@dakan45: @miiiiv:

Very good explanations,

Many just dont want to admit that these new consoles are not going to see the gains as with the 360/PS3 did. Fact then was that they had to learn and develop for new hardware standards. This time around its not like that no new architectures, most of the ground work was laid out years before the release of the new consoles on pc. Which means that early games built for them will make most if not all the resources from the get go. Now granted as time goes on new optimizations and ways of doing things will be introduced allowing more with less resources and then taking those savings in resources and allocating it else where. We will not see the 2x performance crap, or massive graphical gains like from last gen.

#39 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -
@04dcarraher said:

@dakan45: @miiiiv:

Very good explanations,

Many just dont want to admit that these new consoles are not going to see the gains as with the 360/PS3 did. Fact then was that they had to learn and develop for new hardware standards. This time around its not like that no new architectures, most of the ground work was laid out years before the release of the new consoles on pc. Which means that early games built for them will make most if not all the resources from the get go. Now granted as time goes on new optimizations and ways of doing things will be introduced allowing more with less resources and then taking those savings in resources and allocating it else where. We will not see the 2x performance crap, or massive graphical gains like from last gen.

Wrong. Like always.

#40 Posted by 04dcarraher (19597 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:

@dakan45: @miiiiv:

Very good explanations,

Many just dont want to admit that these new consoles are not going to see the gains as with the 360/PS3 did. Fact then was that they had to learn and develop for new hardware standards. This time around its not like that no new architectures, most of the ground work was laid out years before the release of the new consoles on pc. Which means that early games built for them will make most if not all the resources from the get go. Now granted as time goes on new optimizations and ways of doing things will be introduced allowing more with less resources and then taking those savings in resources and allocating it else where. We will not see the 2x performance crap, or massive graphical gains like from last gen.

Wrong. Like always.

lol, its been proven so who's wrong again?

#41 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -
@04dcarraher said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:

@dakan45: @miiiiv:

Very good explanations,

Many just dont want to admit that these new consoles are not going to see the gains as with the 360/PS3 did. Fact then was that they had to learn and develop for new hardware standards. This time around its not like that no new architectures, most of the ground work was laid out years before the release of the new consoles on pc. Which means that early games built for them will make most if not all the resources from the get go. Now granted as time goes on new optimizations and ways of doing things will be introduced allowing more with less resources and then taking those savings in resources and allocating it else where. We will not see the 2x performance crap, or massive graphical gains like from last gen.

Wrong. Like always.

lol, its been proven so who's wrong again?

The only thing that was weitd about last gen consoles was the CPU. It's the multicore of the 360 and the SPE's of the Cell that really challanged devs back then. The GPU's were PC like. And since they could now code for the GPU properly in a console API, they learned it better and better. And for PS3, they utilized the cell and shit.

Look, i've had the argument with you one too many times. So I'll tell you what I believe deep down. These consoles are not just PC's because there is an x86 CPU in there. Just like the Sega Genesis was not a Mac with it's Motorola 68000 CPU. The PS4 is a console with an x86 CPU laptop grade, unified memory and a low/midrange shader model 5 class GPU that has extra ACE's for more efficient GPGPU management.

Is BF4 at 900p 60fps with drops the absolute best PS4 can do? No. It will improve. Engines will improve. And GPU utilization will improve. Just like all consoles in history. That's why Crysis 2 can run on a x1950 pro. Because engines improve to better make use of the hardware. PC gets graphical improvements on the same hardware also. Tomb Raider legend on an x1950 doesn't run so hot. Yet Crysis 2 runs better. That's because the engine takes advantage of more of the silicon on the GPU. Wether it be on PC or console.

But then you forget that on top of these engine adaptations to more modern hardware, there is also single spec optimizations to think about on consoles. So yeah. You do in fact get better performance from a console. 2x better? Show me a single game that shows this difference. I can't find it. So I understand skepticism. Not even 1 game. But for you to say things like "it's only a CPU difference" is rather misinformed. Consoles can potentially perform better than the equivelent powered PC. It's that simple. To deny that is to deny fact that so many developers will tell you.

#42 Edited by 04dcarraher (19597 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:

@dakan45: @miiiiv:

Very good explanations,

Many just dont want to admit that these new consoles are not going to see the gains as with the 360/PS3 did. Fact then was that they had to learn and develop for new hardware standards. This time around its not like that no new architectures, most of the ground work was laid out years before the release of the new consoles on pc. Which means that early games built for them will make most if not all the resources from the get go. Now granted as time goes on new optimizations and ways of doing things will be introduced allowing more with less resources and then taking those savings in resources and allocating it else where. We will not see the 2x performance crap, or massive graphical gains like from last gen.

Wrong. Like always.

lol, its been proven so who's wrong again?

The only thing that was weitd about last gen consoles was the CPU. It's the multicore of the 360 and the SPE's of the Cell that really challanged devs back then. The GPU's were PC like. And since they could now code for the GPU properly in a console API, they learned it better and better. And for PS3, they utilized the cell and shit.

Look, i've had the argument with you one too many times. So I'll tell you what I believe deep down. These consoles are not just PC's because there is an x86 CPU in there. Just like the Sega Genesis was not a Mac with it's Motorola 68000 CPU. The PS4 is a console with an x86 CPU laptop grade, unified memory and a low/midrange shader model 5 class GPU that has extra ACE's for more efficient GPGPU management.

Is BF4 at 900p 60fps with drops the absolute best PS4 can do? No. It will improve. Engines will improve. And GPU utilization will improve. Just like all consoles in history. That's why Crysis 2 can run on a x1950 pro. Because engines improve to better make use of the hardware. PC gets graphical improvements on the same hardware also. Tomb Raider legend on an x1950 doesn't run so hot. Yet Crysis 2 runs better. That's because the engine takes advantage of more of the silicon on the GPU. Wether it be on PC or console.

But then you forget that on top of these engine adaptations to more modern hardware, there is also single spec optimizations to think about on consoles. So yeah. You do in fact get better performance from a console. 2x better? Show me a single game that shows this difference. I can't find it. So I understand skepticism. Not even 1 game. But for you to say things like "it's only a CPU difference" is rather misinformed. Consoles can potentially perform better than the equivelent powered PC. It's that simple. To deny that is to deny fact that so many developers will tell you.

It was not just the cpu's that was a challenge for the devs. When the 360 was released in 2005 the world was still in a single threaded world and well as with gpu's with fixed processors/pipelines on gpu's designated for certain tasks. The 360 shipped with a unified architecture gpu where its processors could be allocated for any job with a flexible ratio. Which meant that devs would have to design software and engines that would make use of the muticore cpu and the new gpu architecture standard.

The PS3 was a Frankenstein of a console with an obsolete gpu architecture aka G70 chip and a cpu that was originally designed to be an all in one cpu doing both gpu work as well as cpu work. But it was not strong enough to compete. So Sony went to Nvidia for a dedicated gpu, as time went on it was belatedly known that the 360 was better by a good margin and devs had to devise the ways to make more use of the SPE's which gave a leg up for the PS3 augmenting the RSX.

These new consoles are computers aka pc's, they use the same based standards in hardware and coding. the only real gains are the proprietary software and same common hardware that allows them to squeeze every last drop of the resources they can. Consoles have using processors from other companies that make for computers for decades its nothing new. In the past many console generations have jumped ahead in abilities when they are released compared to pc's for gaming, like PS1, N64, 360, etc. This time around even with the best console out now the PS4 as you already stated has not introduced nothing new to the table and its hardware mid ranged at best.

Using BF4 as an example that the console isnt being used fully is short sighted because you forget one main problem the lack of cpu processing power which is the culprit for the fps issues. Higher the graphics,detail quality the more data the cpu has to process and send to the gpu to process and render. Engines do get better but the example of the x1950 performing comparable to the 360 is proof in itself that the consoles dont get 2x the performance compared to a comparable pc. Once you get past the cpu overhead from the older directx's, ie dx9, these consoles dont offer anything special to the table.

Now your example with tomb raider is actually funny since there is an example on youtube with Pentium dual core 3gb and x1950pro 512 playing the game above the 360's settings while a bit choppy tweaking the settings to fit the hardware would have yielded a much smoother result. However we are talking about a game made in 2013 asking for only for Radeon HD 2600 XT or Geforce 8600 is in the realm of what the 360's gpu. the x1950 is not a unified shader gpu still has enough processing power to give the 360 a run for its money when you have well coded games.

The 2x performance crap I was referring to was the stupid claims that consoles get 2x performance automatically will allow them to surpass their hardware's limitations which is so wrong. the only time they would be able to was if you were using the same cpu with same gpu and memory amounts and that cpu would have to overcome the all the overheads from OS and direct x API etc.

#43 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1408 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@dakan45: It's hard not to take his word over a rabbid butthurt hermit.

Metro looks and runs better on PC atm.

Actually, this goes for almost every multiplat.

#44 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -
@04dcarraher said:
@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@04dcarraher said:

@dakan45: @miiiiv:

Very good explanations,

Many just dont want to admit that these new consoles are not going to see the gains as with the 360/PS3 did. Fact then was that they had to learn and develop for new hardware standards. This time around its not like that no new architectures, most of the ground work was laid out years before the release of the new consoles on pc. Which means that early games built for them will make most if not all the resources from the get go. Now granted as time goes on new optimizations and ways of doing things will be introduced allowing more with less resources and then taking those savings in resources and allocating it else where. We will not see the 2x performance crap, or massive graphical gains like from last gen.

Wrong. Like always.

lol, its been proven so who's wrong again?

The only thing that was weitd about last gen consoles was the CPU. It's the multicore of the 360 and the SPE's of the Cell that really challanged devs back then. The GPU's were PC like. And since they could now code for the GPU properly in a console API, they learned it better and better. And for PS3, they utilized the cell and shit.

Look, i've had the argument with you one too many times. So I'll tell you what I believe deep down. These consoles are not just PC's because there is an x86 CPU in there. Just like the Sega Genesis was not a Mac with it's Motorola 68000 CPU. The PS4 is a console with an x86 CPU laptop grade, unified memory and a low/midrange shader model 5 class GPU that has extra ACE's for more efficient GPGPU management.

Is BF4 at 900p 60fps with drops the absolute best PS4 can do? No. It will improve. Engines will improve. And GPU utilization will improve. Just like all consoles in history. That's why Crysis 2 can run on a x1950 pro. Because engines improve to better make use of the hardware. PC gets graphical improvements on the same hardware also. Tomb Raider legend on an x1950 doesn't run so hot. Yet Crysis 2 runs better. That's because the engine takes advantage of more of the silicon on the GPU. Wether it be on PC or console.

But then you forget that on top of these engine adaptations to more modern hardware, there is also single spec optimizations to think about on consoles. So yeah. You do in fact get better performance from a console. 2x better? Show me a single game that shows this difference. I can't find it. So I understand skepticism. Not even 1 game. But for you to say things like "it's only a CPU difference" is rather misinformed. Consoles can potentially perform better than the equivelent powered PC. It's that simple. To deny that is to deny fact that so many developers will tell you.

It was not just the cpu's that was a challenge for the devs. When the 360 was released in 2005 the world was still in a single threaded world and well as with gpu's with fixed processors/pipelines on gpu's designated for certain tasks. the 360 shipped with a unified architecture where its processors could be allocated for any job with a flexible ratio. Which meant that devs would have to design software and engines that would make use of the muticore cpu and the new gpu architecture standard. The PS3 was a Frankenstein of a console with an obsolete gpu architecture aka G70 chip and a cpu that was originally designed to be an all in one cpu doing both gpu work as well as cpu work. But it was not strong enough to compete. So Sony went to Nvidia for a dedicated gpu, as time went on it was known that the 360 was better by a good margin and devs had devise the way to make more use of the SPE's which gave a leg up for the PS3 augmenting the RSX.

These new consoles are computers aka pc's, they use the same based standards in hardware and coding. the only real gains are the proprietary software and same common hardware that allows them to squeeze every last drop of the resources they can. Consoles have using processors from other companies that make for computers for decades its nothing new. In the past many console generations have jumped ahead in abilities when they are released compared to pc's for gaming, like PS1, N64, 360, etc. This time around even with the best console out now the PS4 as you already stated has not introduced nothing new to the table and its hardware mid ranged at best.

Using BF4 as an example that the console isnt being used fully is short sighted because you forget one main problem the lack of cpu processing power which is the culprit for the fps issues. Higher the graphics,detail quality the more data the cpu has to process and send to the gpu to process and render. Engines do get better but the example of the x1950 performing comparable to the 360 is proof in itself that the consoles dont get 2x the performance compared to a comparable pc. Once you get past the cpu overhead from the older directx's, ie dx9, these consoles dont offer anything special to the table. Now your example with tomb raider is actually funny since there is an example on youtube with Pentium dual core 3gb and x1950pro 512 playing the game above the 360's settings while a bit choppy tweaking the settings more would have yielded a smoother result. However we are talking about a game made in 2013 asking for only for Radeon HD 2600 XT or Geforce 8600 is in the realm of what the 360's gpu. the x1950 is not a unified shader cpu still has enough processing power to give the 360 a run for its money when you have well coded games.

The 8600GT is actually not as powerful as the 360 GPU. And yeah I was actually aware that the x1950 didn't have unified shaders.

But to keep things short, PS4 games will end up being better graphics than launch multiplats. It's just the truth. If I'm wrong, I'll give you money. Over $100. Oh sorry, Infamous SS is already technically beyond Battlefield 4 in most aspects. You keep saying "PC's improve too", yet deny the PS4 even a little improvement. Strange. Any way, this could go on forever, so let's just agree to disagree.

#45 Edited by 04dcarraher (19597 posts) -
@scottpsfan14 said:

The 8600GT is actually not as powerful as the 360 GPU. And yeah I was actually aware that the x1950 didn't have unified shaders.

But to keep things short, PS4 games will end up being better graphics than launch multiplats. It's just the truth. If I'm wrong, I'll give you money. Over $100. Oh sorry, Infamous SS is already technically beyond Battlefield 4 in most aspects. You keep saying "PC's improve too", yet deny the PS4 even a little improvement. Strange. Any way, this could go on forever, so let's just agree to disagree.

The 8600GT is comparable to the 360's gpu, plenty of examples of it performing and or allowing higher settings with multiplats.

With this generation we have few of different types of multiplats. we have cross generational ones were the 360/PS3 limits the design, and then we have the few that are native dx11 features made for todays modern hardware. Once we move away from the cross gen games we will see better games in general. ISS is not technically beyond Battlefield 4.... aspects in ISS are not consistent in quality and dont let its photo mode and bullshots fool you. Hell even Sleeping dogs maxed out on pc gives ISS a run for its money. Im not saying pc's improve and deny PS4 wont see any improvements.... Im shooting down the major to massive gains that many expect from this gen. When these consoles are not using anything new hardware wise compared to pc.

#46 Edited by PAL360 (26883 posts) -

I would say Metro Redux, Battlefield 4 and Ground Zeroes.

#47 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5284 posts) -
@04dcarraher said:
@scottpsfan14 said:

The 8600GT is actually not as powerful as the 360 GPU. And yeah I was actually aware that the x1950 didn't have unified shaders.

But to keep things short, PS4 games will end up being better graphics than launch multiplats. It's just the truth. If I'm wrong, I'll give you money. Over $100. Oh sorry, Infamous SS is already technically beyond Battlefield 4 in most aspects. You keep saying "PC's improve too", yet deny the PS4 even a little improvement. Strange. Any way, this could go on forever, so let's just agree to disagree.

The 8600GT is comparable to the 360's gpu, plenty of examples of it performing and or allowing higher settings with multiplats.

With this generation we have few of different types of multiplats. we have cross generational ones were the 360/PS3 limits the design, and then we have the few that are native dx11 features made for todays modern hardware. Once we move away from the cross gen games we will see better games in general. ISS is not technically beyond Battlefield 4.... aspects in ISS are not consistent in quality and dont let its photo mode and bullshots fool you. Hell even Sleeping dogs maxed out on pc gives ISS a run for its money. I dont keep on saying pc's improve too and denied PS4 wont see improvements Im shooting down the major to massive gains that many expect from this gen. When these consoles are not using anything new hardware wise compared to pc.

Fair enough then. We will see how this gen unfolds. The big lot of nextgen titles are yetto release. And I don't know about you, but I am excited for them. PS4 is about to get some games that impress people graphically. As is Xbox One.

All I can say is just wait. You will be impressed with what they do with these consoles. And I can't wait for next gen GTA games. The map size and density will blow my dick off lol.

#48 Posted by clone01 (24758 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

Personally, I would say it's better looking than any Xbone or PS4 exclusive. But multiplatform wise, is this king when it comes to visual parity?

Its good that you realize you have no friends now. So that's a start.

#49 Edited by AM-Gamer (3936 posts) -

@04dcarraher: Have you played infamous SS? The game looks consistantly amazing and photo mode adds nothing but a change in camera angles. I'm tired of people commenting on this when they have no clue what there talking about

#50 Edited by AM-Gamer (3936 posts) -

I just bought the redux for PS4 about 3 days ago and just finished metro 2033. I've been playing Metro LL the past few hours. What I can say is I'm very surprised how much better Metro LL looks then 2023. I thought the purpose of the redux was to bring metro 2033 up to the same visual quality of LL.

As far as graphics go neither look better then all the exclusives, that's laughable . Metro 2023 wouldn't crack the top 10 however I would say Metro LL is easily among the best looking multiplats. The textures, lighting and character models are all improved over 2023 and it runs at a locked 60fps.