The funny thing is how people obsess over minor frame rate drops and sub 1080p. Funny thing is the GOTY last year according to most (TLOU) suffered from just that.
this is all from DF
Image quality is also very good. Rendering natively in 720p, the post-process anti-aliasing solution delivers slightly better coverage across the scene compared to the implementation used in Uncharted 3, while textures are also nicely filtered, although they do tend to blur when viewed from certain angles. With that said, the high level of graphical quality is occasionally let down by visibly low-resolution textures, shimmering across long edges and sub-pixel details on more complex scenery. Alpha buffers, reflections and depth-of-field are also rendered in low resolution, leading to the jagged appearance of geometry edges when these elements intersect with characters and parts of the scenery.
Perhaps due to the level of detail on offer in the environments, we also never see the same kind of large-scale set-pieces that helped define the Uncharted titles. Instead Naughty Dog appears to have traded down on the scale of the action to realise larger and more lavish environments while managing overall performance. It's mostly successful in this, too, although the exhaustive range of visual effects, lighting, AI and gameplay sub-systems clearly affects the overall fluidity of the experience.
In the demo we saw how fight sequences and the appearance of multiple light sources caused frame-rates to stray from the desired 30fps target. While this was never an issue when slowly exploring the environment, during fast-paced combat scenes the ebb and flow of the controls is far more important, and it's here where we felt the mild judder and visible loss in smoothness could impact the experience when the engine is more heavily taxed - particularly during gunfights where accuracy is desired to make every last bullet count.
For the most part things haven't changed in the final game: more technically demanding scenes still cause the frame-rate to buckle under the rendering load, although we find that heavier drops in performance have a greater impact on the action when it is situated in larger, more expansive environments. It's not uncommon to see drops of around 5fps - sometimes more - when traversing areas that feature large amounts of foliage and reflective water.
However, a lot of the time this isn't a real issue because it happens during slower-paced segments of the game designed to allow the player to take stock of their surroundings or soak up the storytelling. The clever use of depth-of-field and object blur helps to disguise these deficiencies, too, as does the game's focus on avoiding direct confrontation with bandits and the infected.
It's also fair to say that The Last of Us is placing serious demands on the PS3 hardware, and at times we get the feeling the console is struggling to keep up with the engine's strict v-sync to prevent tearing. The use of triple buffering ensures that not a single frame is ever torn - for every frame rendered one is held in reserve, keeping image consistency solidly intact. The downside is that this technique creates additional input lag, and fire-fights feel a little heavier as a result, with a bit more time required to get into cover and take aim.
So the TL:DR version is it suffers from not being 1080p, framerate drop, low res textures, blurriness, and input lag. but non of that mattered right? any game has minor issues that fanboys will pick apart because they are dumb. But anyone who obsesses over minor things calling 900p upscaled "unplayable" but complains TLOU only got a 8 on here is a joke and a hypocrite.
TLOU is an amazing game, but let's remember that it was released on hardware that came out almost eight years ago.
This is 2014. If you just paid $500 for a brand-new console I would hope your standards are a little bit higher, but judging by this thread that's clearly not the case.
I'm not saying standards shouldn't be higher for a new gen. Of course they should be. But it relates to more then just resolution and frame rate. Its just the extreme hyperbole how if its not 1080p its a blurry mess or if a frame drops its unplayable, when 6 months ago games with the same "issues" were touted as the best ever. Its a big leap to go from something being amazing to pure crap in 6 months.
Also in regards to the games, Take a game like DR3 for example. its not the prettiest, and its 720p and 30 fps. but compare it to DR2 last gen. and you have way more zombies and a way bigger world size and no loading. If capcom wanted a 1080p resolution they could have added loading points (like DR2 which was annoying as hell) had a smaller world and way less zombies. But the game wouldn't have been as good. I'd rather take a fun ambitious game to a bland small game just for the sake of resolution. What you are going to see if fanboys keep doing this, is games suffering. we'll have smaller games that are less fun but look prettier. Like infamous for example. I would have much preferred a 720p infamous if they made the world bigger and more full of life and gave more enemies and kept the lighting. instead they sacrificed to hit the 1080p mark. Thats not good for gamers.
Also rarely do you see a big difference this early in a gen compared to late last gen. it comes later on. games at launch now will look bad compared to games later in the gen. it always happens like that.
this is uncharted 1 released in 2007 (a year after the PS3 release) compared to uncharted 3 which was 2011 4 years later then TLOU in 2013 another 2 years later
All on the same hardware. If what you people think is true, is really true. then TLOU would like like uncharted one which by today's standards, is not very good at all. But back then it was.
Log in to comment