The Order dominates everyone in graphics at Gamescom 2014

#451 Edited by Snugenz (11853 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@Snugenz said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night. One person said DS3 looked better, but all of a sudden it's "they". How long are you gonna play that victim card, oh wait, you're a cow...

Listen. The Order looks good graphically. And because of this, Lems and Hermits like to downplay it by mentioning black bars and 30fps. They can't just appreciate the games visuals.

I'm not saying it's the absolute best graphics human eyes will ever witness, but for it's genre it's raising the visual bar. I am seriously curious as to what game looks better than it for it's genre.

I don't care if it's the best looking game ever, i have a PS4 i can play it if i so choose to. What i find amusing are the fanboys claiming it's the best looking game ever (not just in the genre) and those same fanboys buying that bullshit about the 1920x800 res being a "design decision". It was a decision alright, a decision that had to be made because of hardware limitations.

And thats were it all gets silly, we all know (even the fanboys) that the PS4 is a limited piece of tech, claiming the Order has to adopt a silly res because of that limitation isn't some great insult to Sony or the PS4.

@mikhail said:

It's fine to think this game looks good, it does, but when Sony fanboys start making stupid claims like "You can't see more than 30fps" or "800p is the same as 1080p graphically" or other nonsense, it just makes them look like a bunch of morons. No one believes that nonsense, just look at the recent Order poll I started.

This too.

#452 Edited by scottpsfan14 (4738 posts) -
@Snugenz said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@Snugenz said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night. One person said DS3 looked better, but all of a sudden it's "they". How long are you gonna play that victim card, oh wait, you're a cow...

Listen. The Order looks good graphically. And because of this, Lems and Hermits like to downplay it by mentioning black bars and 30fps. They can't just appreciate the games visuals.

I'm not saying it's the absolute best graphics human eyes will ever witness, but for it's genre it's raising the visual bar. I am seriously curious as to what game looks better than it for it's genre.

I don't care if it's the best looking game ever, i have a PS4 i can play it if i so choose to. What i find amusing are the fanboys claiming it's the best looking game ever (not just in the genre) and those same fanboys buying that bullshit about the 1920x800 res being a "design decision". It was a decision alright, a decision that had to be made because of hardware limitations.

And thats were it all gets silly, we all know (even the fanboys) that the PS4 is a limited piece of tech, claiming the Order has to adopt a silly res because of that limitation isn't some great insult to Sony or the PS4.

Just saying that they could have went for full 1080p and used SMAA and it would of actually performed better. I would have rather them do that.

#453 Posted by Heirren (16851 posts) -

I've said it earlier but people need to actually play the game before commenting on the resolution. First, 99 percent of tvs are 16:9. This aspect ratio does not coincide with all films. In fact, most are NOT 16:9. I know a game is not a film, but the reason directors will use a wider ratio is because it allows for more dynamic shots, etc. In regards to gameplay it can open, pull back the camera a bit, and offer a much greater field of vision. PC gamers are the ones ragging on this game the most, yet they should know best about resolutions and aspect ratios. Am I the only one that, back in the day of of 4:3 monitors, would pick the resolutions that opened up the games vision a bit?

#454 Posted by Vaasman (11346 posts) -

@scottpsfan14: Calling it "best looking in genre" is a bit asinine. Considering it has absolutely no TPS's this gen to compete against, all you're basically saying is it's better than nothing.

#455 Posted by mikhail (1572 posts) -

I would prefer them to do a full 1080p buffer with SMAA. They would actually gain performance since 4xMSAA and x800 is more taxing.

Dude what? Who told you that, Remedy and/or Sony? That isn't true at all.

#456 Posted by MonsieurX (29996 posts) -

@gpuking said:

OK so a handful of dudes here own some high end cards but do any of you hermits own one or two? What about 65" 4k screens? If not then stfu with this shit. As for design choice, if you don't like it then leave it but acting like it's some technical deficiency of the hardware is plain idiotic. The Order can render 1080p any day of the week with post AA, just like Infamous, Killzone and 99% of other ps4 games. PS4 could have 10tflops of power but still renders at 800p if the devs desire to, it's called a DESIGN CHOICE. I feel like my hair went grey a little by explaining for the 99999th time.

It's called PR,and you're eating it.

#457 Posted by mikhail (1572 posts) -

@Heirren said:

I've said it earlier but people need to actually play the game before commenting on the resolution. First, 99 percent of tvs are 16:9. This aspect ratio does not coincide with all films. In fact, most are NOT 16:9. I know a game is not a film, but the reason directors will use a wider ratio is because it allows for more dynamic shots, etc. In regards to gameplay it can open, pull back the camera a bit, and offer a much greater field of vision. PC gamers are the ones ragging on this game the most, yet they should know best about resolutions and aspect ratios. Am I the only one that, back in the day of of 4:3 monitors, would pick the resolutions that opened up the games vision a bit?

You've got it completely wrong. You're referring to FOV - Field of View - and this is completely independent from a game's resolution or aspect ratio. Reducing FOV by "zooming in" is yet another trick used by devs to reduce the amount of processing power needed to render scenes in games. The lower your FOV is, the less horsepower is needed. The "cinematic bars" are used in conjunction with reducing FOV to allow the game to even run at 30fps...that's the whole point of what we're saying.

Read between the lines a little and you'll see what I'm saying is true. Your blind fanboyism is the only thing that's preventing you from using logic and reason to understand that you're gobbling up PR speak like it's the first meal you've had in weeks.

#458 Posted by Heirren (16851 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@Heirren said:

I've said it earlier but people need to actually play the game before commenting on the resolution. First, 99 percent of tvs are 16:9. This aspect ratio does not coincide with all films. In fact, most are NOT 16:9. I know a game is not a film, but the reason directors will use a wider ratio is because it allows for more dynamic shots, etc. In regards to gameplay it can open, pull back the camera a bit, and offer a much greater field of vision. PC gamers are the ones ragging on this game the most, yet they should know best about resolutions and aspect ratios. Am I the only one that, back in the day of of 4:3 monitors, would pick the resolutions that opened up the games vision a bit?

You've got it completely wrong. You're referring to FOV - Field of View - and this is completely independent from a game's resolution or aspect ratio. Reducing FOV by "zooming in" is yet another trick used by devs to reduce the amount of processing power needed to render scenes in games. The lower your FOV is, the less horsepower is needed. The "cinematic bars" are used in conjunction with reducing FOV to allow the game to even run at 30fps...that's the whole point of what we're saying.

Read between the lines a little and you'll see what I'm saying is true. Your blind fanboyism is the only thing that's preventing you from using logic and reason to understand that you're gobbling up PR speak like it's the first meal you've had in weeks.

I don't have it wrong. I opened up by saying that the game needs to be played in order for their to be comments on whether or not this aspect ratio actually does something for the game. The aspect ratio relating to what I had said is potentially true, depending on what the developers do. I'm not claiming anyone to be wrong here, simply that people may be jumpng to conclusions.

Also I'm not a fanboy. Stop saying that it is getting stale.

#459 Posted by clone01 (24653 posts) -

@gpuking said:

OK so a handful of dudes here own some high end cards but do any of you hermits own one or two? What about 65" 4k screens? If not then stfu with this shit. As for design choice, if you don't like it then leave it but acting like it's some technical deficiency of the hardware is plain idiotic. The Order can render 1080p any day of the week with post AA, just like Infamous, Killzone and 99% of other ps4 games. PS4 could have 10tflops of power but still renders at 800p if the devs desire to, it's called a DESIGN CHOICE. I feel like my hair went grey a little by explaining for the 99999th time.

Dude, did you forget to take your meds this morning? Calm down. I'm starting to believe your actually this much of an angry fanboy, and not just a troll.

#460 Posted by clyde46 (46010 posts) -

@clone01 said:

@gpuking said:

OK so a handful of dudes here own some high end cards but do any of you hermits own one or two? What about 65" 4k screens? If not then stfu with this shit. As for design choice, if you don't like it then leave it but acting like it's some technical deficiency of the hardware is plain idiotic. The Order can render 1080p any day of the week with post AA, just like Infamous, Killzone and 99% of other ps4 games. PS4 could have 10tflops of power but still renders at 800p if the devs desire to, it's called a DESIGN CHOICE. I feel like my hair went grey a little by explaining for the 99999th time.

Dude, did you forget to take your meds this morning? Calm down. I'm starting to believe your actually this much of an angry fanboy, and not just a troll.

Its obvious that he's a fanboy.

#461 Posted by cainetao11 (17341 posts) -

@Snugenz: I don't care if it's the best looking game ever, i have a PS4 i can play it if i so choose to. What i find amusing are the fanboys claiming it's the best looking game ever (not just in the genre) and those same fanboys buying that bullshit about the 1920x800 res being a "design decision". It was a decision alright, a decision that had to be made because of hardware limitations.

That's one of my favorite parts of SW. Fanboys believing one company is telling real truth and the others are DC and spinning. The selectiveness is hilarious

#462 Edited by faizan_faizan (7866 posts) -

@mikhail said:

Dude what? Who told you that, Remedy and/or Sony? That isn't true at all.

He's right.

Assuming they go with temporal SMAA and 1080p, they would only see a performance increase. 1920x800's performance is actually very close to 900p's. Basically, 4x MSAA (and presumably, they're also using alpha-to-coverage) is killing whatever performance they had without MSAA. I think their 4x MSAA decision was inane.

Some people might not realize this, but The Order devs have a lot of tricks to hide visual imperfections.

#463 Posted by mikhail (1572 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@mikhail said:

@Heirren said:

I've said it earlier but people need to actually play the game before commenting on the resolution. First, 99 percent of tvs are 16:9. This aspect ratio does not coincide with all films. In fact, most are NOT 16:9. I know a game is not a film, but the reason directors will use a wider ratio is because it allows for more dynamic shots, etc. In regards to gameplay it can open, pull back the camera a bit, and offer a much greater field of vision. PC gamers are the ones ragging on this game the most, yet they should know best about resolutions and aspect ratios. Am I the only one that, back in the day of of 4:3 monitors, would pick the resolutions that opened up the games vision a bit?

You've got it completely wrong. You're referring to FOV - Field of View - and this is completely independent from a game's resolution or aspect ratio. Reducing FOV by "zooming in" is yet another trick used by devs to reduce the amount of processing power needed to render scenes in games. The lower your FOV is, the less horsepower is needed. The "cinematic bars" are used in conjunction with reducing FOV to allow the game to even run at 30fps...that's the whole point of what we're saying.

Read between the lines a little and you'll see what I'm saying is true. Your blind fanboyism is the only thing that's preventing you from using logic and reason to understand that you're gobbling up PR speak like it's the first meal you've had in weeks.

I don't have it wrong. I opened up by saying that the game needs to be played in order for their to be comments on whether or not this aspect ratio actually does something for the game. The aspect ratio relating to what I had said is potentially true, depending on what the developers do. I'm not claiming anyone to be wrong here, simply that people may be jumpng to conclusions.

Also I'm not a fanboy. Stop saying that it is getting stale.

It's also potentially true that Sasquatch exists, although not very likely. It's also possible, but not likely, that The Order's resolution was only an aesthetic choice to make the game look more "filmic" and not a direct result of the PS4's hardware being underpowered as hell.

#464 Posted by hiphops_savior (7874 posts) -

It looks alright. I might enjoy it, but I am certainly not hyping this game up for ego purposes.

I am looking forward to Smash Bros and Bayonetta 2, however.

#465 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@mikhail said:

@Heirren said:

@mikhail said:

@Heirren said:

I've said it earlier but people need to actually play the game before commenting on the resolution. First, 99 percent of tvs are 16:9. This aspect ratio does not coincide with all films. In fact, most are NOT 16:9. I know a game is not a film, but the reason directors will use a wider ratio is because it allows for more dynamic shots, etc. In regards to gameplay it can open, pull back the camera a bit, and offer a much greater field of vision. PC gamers are the ones ragging on this game the most, yet they should know best about resolutions and aspect ratios. Am I the only one that, back in the day of of 4:3 monitors, would pick the resolutions that opened up the games vision a bit?

You've got it completely wrong. You're referring to FOV - Field of View - and this is completely independent from a game's resolution or aspect ratio. Reducing FOV by "zooming in" is yet another trick used by devs to reduce the amount of processing power needed to render scenes in games. The lower your FOV is, the less horsepower is needed. The "cinematic bars" are used in conjunction with reducing FOV to allow the game to even run at 30fps...that's the whole point of what we're saying.

Read between the lines a little and you'll see what I'm saying is true. Your blind fanboyism is the only thing that's preventing you from using logic and reason to understand that you're gobbling up PR speak like it's the first meal you've had in weeks.

I don't have it wrong. I opened up by saying that the game needs to be played in order for their to be comments on whether or not this aspect ratio actually does something for the game. The aspect ratio relating to what I had said is potentially true, depending on what the developers do. I'm not claiming anyone to be wrong here, simply that people may be jumpng to conclusions.

Also I'm not a fanboy. Stop saying that it is getting stale.

It's also potentially true that Sasquatch exists, although not very likely. It's also possible, but not likely, that The Order's resolution was only an aesthetic choice to make the game look more "filmic" and not a direct result of the PS4's hardware being underpowered as hell.

Have to agree with Mikhail here. Movies have black bars because the films have a wider aspect ratio than 16x9. These movies cut nothing off the top and bottom but give you more on the sides. The Order is not doing that.

#466 Edited by speedfog (3113 posts) -

People pleople people, let's end this thread, black bars = low res = not 1080 p = not best graphics. So not the best graphics.

#467 Edited by Pray_to_me (2837 posts) -

It shit's on everything on PC. Even with the black bar compromise.

#468 Posted by shurns (77 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@gpuking said:

You are forever in denial Snugenz, nothing can help you.

Denial about what, you're one of the very few who actually believe the "design choice" bullshit, it is you who's in denial as usual.

Insecurity can play tricks on the mind, especially someone as weak minded as you.

It is a design choice and I don't like their "design choice" either. Whether you like the choice or not is a matter of perspective.

#469 Edited by Liquid_ (2581 posts) -

The game looks amazing graphically, the gameplay however left me disappointed.

yep

#470 Posted by PsychoLemons (2074 posts) -

Looks can be deceiving.

#471 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: That's funny you say this because thats the argument I used against Crysis last gen. Hermists said it deserved best visual and I disagreed because it took 3 years after the game released before a single GPU could max the graphics at even a playable framerate.

In regards to the order the fact of the matter though is the devs could have gone full 1080p but they would have reduced it to 2xMsaa instead of 4. Would that have been more impressive for you? You will not be running any of the highest end games a 2x the resolution on pc unless you are running SLI. I don't see PC running Crysis 3, metro are the upcoming SC at 2x the resolution and 60fps on single GPUs and if you have to go into SLI that's just overkill to me. The fact is the asset quality on the order such as (textures,lighting, motion blur and animation) is some of the best used on any game period. Graphically it's stunning and to see a game rival high end CGI used in games is impressive to me even if compromises were made.

Crysis even on high settings(not very high) had better graphics than any game back then, and it was able to run at 60fps at this setting, with the best hardware at that time.

4XAA to 2xAA have a small performance hit compared to an additional 537600 pixels. An I do play all my games at 2560x1440 and 60fps is not as demanding as you think (2.5x bigger rez than what order is running LOL), The fact is that order looks below average for pc standards. Also you talk about lighting, motion blur, animation, etc being "some of the best used on any game period" ? really? best lighting with lightmaps? LOL, best animation with 30fps? LOL, bragging for motion blur when people try to remove things like that whenever it is possible.

#472 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -

1440p/60FPS isn't even now a standard for PC gamers, let alone in 2012. Only very few people can afford such an expensive computer plus some games can't even be played in 1440p/60FPS, like Crysis 3, even with a GTX Titan/780 the game has trouble staying at 40FPS on 1440p. You'd probably need dual Titans for 1440p/60FPS and upcoming games will be even more taxing than Crysis 3, yeah dat standard.

I actually I do play all my games at 1440p/60FPS from 2012, the same goes for all my friends (not console games friends of course). And is not as expensive as you think, I have my two CF HD7950 OC to 7970GHz/280X speeds, and it only cost me slightly above PS4 price and that was more than 2 years ago (16 months before the PS4 release date), now you can get 2 7950 (equivalent now to R9 280) for less than PS4 price and it will give you more than 8 TFLOPS(if OC like my) of power compared to only 1.84TFLOPS of PS4 LOL.

#473 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: Crysis was not running on high settings at 60 fps back then unless you were using SLI.

So now fps has to do with animation quality? Lmao I'm sorry but you are clueless. You said the order has assets below pc standards? I'm sorry but you are fucking delusional. The sheer amount of polygons and geometry used in that games brings just about every pc game to shame not to mention the texture work is flawless. Per object motion blur is also demanding. So stop acting like you would remove it if its done well.

#474 Posted by BldgIrsh (2208 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: Crysis was not running on high settings at 60 fps back then unless you were using SLI.

So now fps has to do with animation quality? Lmao I'm sorry but you are clueless. You said the order has assets below pc standards? I'm sorry but you are fucking delusional. The sheer amount of polygons and geometry used in that games brings just about every pc game to shame not to mention the texture work is flawless.

The amount of poly's used on those black bars truly separate this game from any PC game running at 4k.

#475 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@bldgirsh: You won't be running any high end titles at 4k at playable frame rates unless you are using SLI. Unless you are talking about 360 ports which will never touch the order even if they are in 4k.

#476 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: Crysis was not running on high settings at 60 fps back then unless you were using SLI.

So now fps has to do with animation quality? Lmao I'm sorry but you are clueless. You said the order has assets below pc standards? I'm sorry but you are fucking delusional. The sheer amount of polygons and geometry used in that games brings just about every pc game to shame not to mention the texture work is flawless. Per object motion blur is also demanding. So stop acting like you would remove it if its done well.

Dual GPU suddenly do not count? (I currently have two GPU's it doesn’t count? I am not taking more performance? LOL what else, mods don’t count?, rts don’t count? etc...LOL) A single 8800GTX was able to play crysis at high settings with 1680x1050 and 40fps, obviously two of these will do the trick.(the best hardware as I said)

You can’t claim the ‘BEST’ animation when is running at chanky 30fps. It doesn’t look like it has any exceptional big polygons count. Also motion blur dose the opposite of what you think it does, it actually help, because it is allow the redaction of other things in graphics without getting too obvious. Funny how you even dare to say “brings just about every pc game to shame” LOL when it is below PC standards.

#477 Posted by Snugenz (11853 posts) -

@shurns said:

@Snugenz said:

@gpuking said:

You are forever in denial Snugenz, nothing can help you.

Denial about what, you're one of the very few who actually believe the "design choice" bullshit, it is you who's in denial as usual.

Insecurity can play tricks on the mind, especially someone as weak minded as you.

It is a design choice and I don't like their "design choice" either. Whether you like the choice or not is a matter of perspective.

It's a design choice that had to be made because of hardware limitations. To think they'd choose not to have 1080p and every bell and whistle if they had the grunt to do so is naive.

#478 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: Lol funny you talk about how amazing crysis was when it could only hit 40fps and not even in 1080p. And my point is if you have to bring SLI into the equation you are simply grasping for straws. Regardless if you don't think the character models and environmental detail isn't a level above what's out now you are delusional and there's no point to continue the argument. Also it uses per object motion blur. It's not hiding anything. It would have been less demanding if they took it out all together.

#479 Edited by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: Lol funny you talk about how amazing crysis was when it could only hit 40fps and not even in 1080p. And my point is if you have to bring SLI into the equation you are simply grasping for straws. Regardless if you don't think the character models and environmental detail isn't a level above what's out now you are delusional and there's no point to continue the argument. Also it uses per object motion blur. It's not hiding anything. It would have been less demanding if they took it out all together.

I get it, Dual GPU's donot count, motion blur is considered advantage LOL, mods donot count, rts donot count, etc.

1080p back the was considered high rez, it is not like now that is considered a low resolution. As a whole, the order is below PC standards.

#480 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: Outside of res and framerate it's above pc standards in just about every way as well as just about any other game. You know why you have games that run well over 60fps in 4k on PC? Because they have Shit assets hence the reason the more demanding games do not achieve those benchmarks. To act as if the order doesn't have among the highest quality assets seen in a game is simply foolish.

#481 Edited by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: Outside of res and framerate it's above pc standards in just about every way as well as just about any other game. You know why you have games that run well over 60fps in 4k on PC? Because they have Shit assets hence the reason the more demanding games do not achieve those benchmarks. To act as if the order doesn't have among the highest quality assets seen in a game is simply foolish.

Or because PC's are way more powerful? maybe that is the reason? PS4 is around the level of a low end GPU, and games(including order) reflect that.

#482 Posted by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: Then why isn't any high end game running at 4k at a playable framerate on a single gpu? And why do the assets look far beyond anything you currently see on pc? Maybe it's because the majority of the titles are simply upscaled 360 ports.

#483 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: Then why isn't any high end game running at 4k at a playable framerate on a single gpu? And why do the assets look far beyond anything you currently see on pc? Maybe it's because the majority of the titles are simply upscaled 360 ports.

Just accept that there is not such a thing as "far beyond anything you currently see on pc" or better or anything like that, it is simply below pc standards. You mean it will look like an upscaled 360 ports if you use low settings? Also the overwhelming majority of PS4 games are also on PC so that means that majority of the titles on the PS4 are upscaled 360 ports? Ooo

#484 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: just accept the fact last gen games in higher resolution still look far behind true next gen games and the majority of pc games are simply upscaled 360 ports. You can't name any game on pc in the same genre that's remotely in the same league.

#485 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: just accept the fact last gen games in higher resolution still look far behind true next gen games and the majority of pc games are simply upscaled 360 ports. You can't name any game on pc in the same genre that's remotely in the same league.

From 2011 PC is getting next gen games. Why it have to be in the same genre? Again no problem I will play with your rules (as before) because it is fun.

All these TPS games that I have actually play on my PC look and play spectacular (and far beyond what order800 can achieve) at 2560x1440, 60fps, max settings with mods or without mods, hitman, tombraider, skyrim(as TPS with mods), sleeping dogs, watching dogs, witcher 2,etc

#486 Posted by m3dude1 (1276 posts) -

lol your 7950s in sli arent running those games maxed at 60 fps. try again newb

#487 Posted by humanistpotato (494 posts) -

AA looks amazing, main character and especially characters clothes looks cool. But the texture in the environment is really bad. So far the videos i've seen shows very small areas , you might like the cinematic style of the game but technically this game cant even surpass Frosbyte engine maxed out on pc. But uncharted series looked great even though they werent technically superior.

And also to all those sony lovers that says sony never lets customers down, and game will look this good or even better on release, did you guys forget killzone 2 , lulz.

#488 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: You can count the games on one hand that qualify as next gen on pc. Why does it need to be in the same genre? Because its a apples to apples comparison. Regardless there's no TPS currently even in the same league. Now does that mean your PC couldn't run the order better then the PS4 if it was optimized for it? No I'm not saying that. But to disqualify all that the game does because of black bars and 30fps is ridiculous. The game rivals high end cgi and nothing else can claim that.

Hitman and Tomb raider can run in 8k at 100fps. From a visual perspective they can't hold the orders jock. That's like saying God of war 2 in 4k looks better then God of war 3 in 720p. Res and framerate simply has to do with the brute force of the hardware not the quality of assets in the game.

#489 Edited by Snugenz (11853 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

The game rivals high end cgi and nothing else can claim that.

It's this kind've extreme hyperbole that brings all the hate to this game, it's a great looking game but it most definitely does not rival high end CGI, not even close.

It doesn't even beat Star Citizen and even that doesn't rival high end CGI.

#490 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@Snugenz: if you wanna say sc is more impressive because of its scale that's fair. If you want to tell me SC looks better then the order you are fucking delusional. It gets so much hate because it's a great looking game that's exclusive.

And yes the order rivals high end game cgi. I'm not saying it matches movie cgi like avatar.

#491 Posted by Snugenz (11853 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@Snugenz: if you wanna say sc is more impressive because of its scale that's fair. If you want to tell me SC looks better then the order you are fucking delusional. It gets so much hate because it's a great looking game that's exclusive.

And yes the order rivals high end game cgi. I'm not saying it matches movie cgi like avatar.

I'm most certainly not the delusional one among us if you believe that shit you're spouting.

#492 Posted by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@Snugenz: If you think something on the scale of SC matches the order you are delusional and just plain foolish. You are at least 5 years away from seeing visuals like the order in an open world game. The TPS gameplay of SC looks horrid.

#493 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: You can count the games on one hand that qualify as next gen on pc. Why does it need to be in the same genre? Because its a apples to apples comparison. Regardless there's no TPS currently even in the same league. Now does that mean your PC couldn't run the order better then the PS4 if it was optimized for it? No I'm not saying that. But to disqualify all that the game does because of black bars and 30fps is ridiculous. The game rivals high end cgi and nothing else can claim that.

I am drunk therefore: Hitman and Tomb raider can run in 8k at 100fps. From a visual perspective they can't hold the orders jock. That's like saying God of war 2 in 4k looks better then God of war 3 in 720p. Res and framerate simply has to do with the brute force of the hardware not the quality of assets in the game.

In order to be a direct comparison it needs to be the same game, same art, same developer, same budget, etc

“Regardless there's no TPS currently even in the same league” I think we agree here all the games I mention are at a higher league. Now if order had a pc version my pc could easily run it at 2560x1440, 60fps, higher fov, etc and most importantly NO BLACK BARS.

#494 Posted by Snugenz (11853 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@Snugenz: If you think something on the scale of SC matches the order you are delusional and just plain foolish. You are at least 5 years away from seeing visuals like the order in an open world game. The TPS gameplay of SC looks horrid.

What a load of fanboy bullshit. The Order is a great looking game, but calm the fuck down, it's not that great looking.

#495 Posted by MK-Professor (3789 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

lol your 7950s in sli arent running those games maxed at 60 fps. try again newb

Well if I was running 2 HD7950’s in SLI then indeed I will be newb, but that is not the case because I ran them in CF. Also I have them OC to HD7970GHz/R9 280X level, so we are talking about same serious power here beyond what a single GTX780TI/TITAN can achieve.

#496 Edited by m3dude1 (1276 posts) -
@Snugenz said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@Snugenz: if you wanna say sc is more impressive because of its scale that's fair. If you want to tell me SC looks better then the order you are fucking delusional. It gets so much hate because it's a great looking game that's exclusive.

And yes the order rivals high end game cgi. I'm not saying it matches movie cgi like avatar.

I'm most certainly not the delusional one among us if you believe that shit you're spouting.

herms think dead space, tomb raider and skyrim look better than the order and you talk about delusion. el oh el

#497 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@MK-Professor: You think hitman on pc looks better then the order ? LMAO God hermits never cease to amaze me. And no I doubt your pc would be running it at that res. It would be far more demanding then your 360 ports. But by your standards Pac man on PC looks better then every thing.

#498 Edited by Snugenz (11853 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

lol your 7950s in sli arent running those games maxed at 60 fps. try again newb

@Snugenz said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@Snugenz: if you wanna say sc is more impressive because of its scale that's fair. If you want to tell me SC looks better then the order you are fucking delusional. It gets so much hate because it's a great looking game that's exclusive.

And yes the order rivals high end game cgi. I'm not saying it matches movie cgi like avatar.

I'm most certainly not the delusional one among us if you believe that shit you're spouting.

herms think dead space, tomb raider and skyrim look better than the order and you talk about delusion. el oh el

I never said they look better and i've never seen anyone say they look better than the Order, so unless you have proof of "herms" as a group claiming those three games look better than the Order, gtfo.

#499 Edited by m3dude1 (1276 posts) -
@MK-Professor said:

@m3dude1 said:

lol your 7950s in sli arent running those games maxed at 60 fps. try again newb

Well if I was running 2 HD7950’s in SLI then indeed I will be newb, but that is not the case because I ran them in CF. Also I have them OC to HD7970GHz/R9 280X level, so we are talking about same serious power here beyond what a single GTX780TI/TITAN can achieve.

yeah crossfire, congrats u pointed out a simple mistake. a 780ti at 1.2 ghz(my card) is going to beat your cards in most scenarios and im NOWHERE NEAR being able to play modern games at 1440p maxed 60 fps.

@Snugenz do you even read?

#500 Edited by AM-Gamer (3802 posts) -

@Snugenz: MK professor just said they looked better and he's a raging hermit.

Second I don't need to calm down im simply stating facts. SC does not look better . Is it a far more demanding game on hardware? Yes because of its scale. But do you honestly wanna sit here and tell me the TPS footage of SC exceeds the Order? Lol really?