Uncharted 4 and The Order surpass any PC games graphically.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#501 Edited by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

i've never noticed it before. what's going on?

I think it's watching a movie at home that does it. In a theatre, it doesn't bother. That being said, I can still absolutely watch them, it's just annoying.

Unless you are asking about the game, in which it utilizes an aspect ratio that has black bars at the top and bottom.

#502 Posted by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -
@clyde46 said:

@m3dude1 said:

lol crysis shots are downsampled bullshots and killzone still wins. notice how herms will never put frame counters in their bullshots. the one real shot with a framerate is barely above 30 just looking at the ground. looooooooooooool!!!!!

And? Its not like KZ has a better frame rate.

do you just lack any bit of sense? why dont you go compare your fps in a game when looking at the ground vs actually playing it

#503 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:
@clyde46 said:

@m3dude1 said:

lol crysis shots are downsampled bullshots and killzone still wins. notice how herms will never put frame counters in their bullshots. the one real shot with a framerate is barely above 30 just looking at the ground. looooooooooooool!!!!!

And? Its not like KZ has a better frame rate.

do you just lack any bit of sense? why dont you go compare your fps in a game when looking at the ground vs actually playing it

He said "And?" Which concedes the fact, and then stipulated that KZ does no better, as it hits 30FPS in SP. English much?

#504 Edited by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -

why would we want a ps4 using its resources to run an ugly POS game at 150 fps? yeah man thats a great use of processing power. u should post some quake 3 999 fps pics to RLY cement in the pwnage

#505 Posted by BldgIrsh (3000 posts) -

@m3dude1: Did you avoid the video I posted?

You cows are blind to non-sony products.

#506 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

strawman

#507 Edited by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@m3dude1 said:
@clyde46 said:

@m3dude1 said:

lol crysis shots are downsampled bullshots and killzone still wins. notice how herms will never put frame counters in their bullshots. the one real shot with a framerate is barely above 30 just looking at the ground. looooooooooooool!!!!!

And? Its not like KZ has a better frame rate.

do you just lack any bit of sense? why dont you go compare your fps in a game when looking at the ground vs actually playing it

He said "And?" Which concedes the fact, and then stipulated that KZ does no better, as it hits 30FPS in SP. English much?

except that killzone does get a better framerate. unless you plan on playing crysis 3 without ever looking up from the ground

@bldgirsh im not sure what your trying to prove with a c3 video jumping all around between 30 and 60 fps on an sli system. that low of a framerate on an sli system = mouse lag, massive frame time variations and a generally horrible experience

#508 Edited by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

why would we want a ps4 using its resources to run an ugly POS game at 150 fps? yeah man thats a great use of processing power. u should post some quake 3 999 fps pics to RLY cement in the pwnage

Are you talking about Tomb Raider, which scored an 85 MC for the PS4? You seem to be implying that it could run it at 150FPS should the dev have wanted that.

#509 Posted by Dasein808 (575 posts) -

@m3dude1: You have to be one of the most ignorant console fanboys that I've ever encountered. Please, continue your floundering and sharing your ignorance, it's both amusing and frightening.

#510 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

except that killzone clearly does get a better framerate. unless you plan on playing crysis 3 without ever looking up from the ground

Killzone runs at 30fps for the campaign. You're speculating on the Crysis 3 framerate, which is a damn flawed argument.

Good God, your English is bad, and so is your comprehension.

#511 Edited by Pray_to_me (3102 posts) -

@deathlordcrime said:

You keep spamming that trash like you think it's impressive.

Don't worry PC will get a next gen game some day.

#512 Posted by GarGx1 (3406 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

why would we want a ps4 using its resources to run an ugly POS game at 150 fps? yeah man thats a great use of processing power. u should post some quake 3 999 fps pics to RLY cement in the pwnage

Lets see some screen shots of Watchdogs on PS4 with Ultra settings at 1080p, with frame rates, on PS4. Nope?

How about some screenshots with it running at any res and getting close to 60 frames?

#513 Posted by clyde46 (47610 posts) -
@Pray_to_me said:

@deathlordcrime said:

You keep spamming that trash like you think it's impressive.

Don't worry PC will get a next gen game some day.

Dude, its painfully obvious that Crysis 3 has the better looking screens there.

#514 Posted by cainetao11 (19565 posts) -

I am so thankful none of this matters to me. Most games shown here look great to me.

#515 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@clyde46 said:
@Pray_to_me said:

You keep spamming that trash like you think it's impressive.

Don't worry PC will get a next gen game some day.

Dude, its painfully obvious that Crysis 3 has the better looking screens there.

I second that. Shit Killzone shots... Which is hilarious, because it's a decent looking game.

#516 Posted by BldgIrsh (3000 posts) -

@clyde46 said:
@Pray_to_me said:

@deathlordcrime said:

You keep spamming that trash like you think it's impressive.

Don't worry PC will get a next gen game some day.

Dude, its painfully obvious that Crysis 3 has the better looking screens there.

These KZ SF shots look horrid... Jaggies blur holy hell. I hope he's joking...

#517 Posted by clyde46 (47610 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@clyde46 said:
@Pray_to_me said:

You keep spamming that trash like you think it's impressive.

Don't worry PC will get a next gen game some day.

Dude, its painfully obvious that Crysis 3 has the better looking screens there.

I second that. Shit Killzone shots... Which is hilarious, because it's a decent looking game.

Ironically posted by Cow.

#518 Edited by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@m3dude1 said:

why would we want a ps4 using its resources to run an ugly POS game at 150 fps? yeah man thats a great use of processing power. u should post some quake 3 999 fps pics to RLY cement in the pwnage

Are you talking about Tomb Raider, which scored an 85 MC for the PS4? You seem to be implying that it could run it at 150FPS should the dev have wanted that.

didnt imply that at all, i just stated its a colossal waste of processing power.

#519 Edited by Pray_to_me (3102 posts) -

@GarGx1 said:

Can your PS4 do that?

Or maybe this?

Both Tomb Raider and Watchdogs on full everything at 1080p, apart from DoF and Motion Blur (I always switch off the smoke and mirrors nonsense). Whether you think those two games are 'graphic kings' or not, PS4 can not get either of them at Ultra settings and 1080p let alone get even close to 150 frames a second. Hell it can't even get most games up to 1080p and 60 fps, including the games that have been posted in this thread as the best it has.

Can your PC do this?

No? I mean seriously you don't think that anyone is jealous that your overpriced PC can play Tombraider in 100 fps do you? lol!

#520 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

actually that's a good point. I am going to go with 1080P monitors, so 120/144Hz monitors might be the way to go.

#521 Posted by clyde46 (47610 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

actually that's a good point. I am going to go with 1080P monitors, so 120/144Hz monitors might be the way to go.

But that 27in!

#522 Edited by Dasein808 (575 posts) -

@m3dude1:Only it's not, if you have a monitor that supports those framerates with a corresponding refresh rate and if you have any understanding of input latency.

Unfortunately, most console players know nothing of the relationship between input latency and frameratre and make ignorant statements like you just did that the other peasants then parrot as truth.

#523 Posted by uninspiredcup (12882 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

actually that's a good point. I am going to go with 1080P monitors, so 120/144Hz monitors might be the way to go.

120hz is required for 3d. Whatever happened to that? Sony sure as fuck tried to sell it hard.

#524 Edited by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:

@m3dude1:Only it's not, if you have a monitor that supports those framerates with a corresponding refresh rate and if you have any understanding of input latency.

Unfortunately, most console players know nothing of the relationship between input latency and frameratre and make ignorant statements like you just did that the other peasants then parrot as truth.

its watch dogs, not quake 3/unreal. and hes not nearly good enough at fps games for it to even matter in a quake 3/unreal type game.

#525 Edited by Dasein808 (575 posts) -

@m3dude1: Faster response time is faster response time. Smoother animation is smoother animation.

#526 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

actually that's a good point. I am going to go with 1080P monitors, so 120/144Hz monitors might be the way to go.

120hz is required for 3d. Whatever happened to that? Sony sure as fuck tried to sell it hard.

yeah it would be a nice option to have, 3d. but i'm not really interested in that aspect, i love more frames per second.

i just love a good fast frame rate. unreal tournament 2004 on the weekend, 60 fps on every machine in the home. perfect for that game.

#527 Posted by clyde46 (47610 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Dasein808 said:

@m3dude1:Only it's not, if you have a monitor that supports those framerates with a corresponding refresh rate and if you have any understanding of input latency.

Unfortunately, most console players know nothing of the relationship between input latency and frameratre and make ignorant statements like you just did that the other peasants then parrot as truth.

its watch dogs, not quake 3. and hes not nearly good enough at fps games for it to even matter in a quake 3 type game.

Jelly detected.

#528 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@clyde46 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

actually that's a good point. I am going to go with 1080P monitors, so 120/144Hz monitors might be the way to go.

But that 27in!

i'll probably go for 24 or 27 inches. the other video output will be into 1080P60 televisions, 32 inch.

#529 Posted by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@m3dude1 said:

@Dasein808 said:

@m3dude1:Only it's not, if you have a monitor that supports those framerates with a corresponding refresh rate and if you have any understanding of input latency.

Unfortunately, most console players know nothing of the relationship between input latency and frameratre and make ignorant statements like you just did that the other peasants then parrot as truth.

its watch dogs, not quake 3. and hes not nearly good enough at fps games for it to even matter in a quake 3 type game.

Jelly detected.

ill play him, you, or anyone else on this board for that matter in some old school dm if you want to put that statement to the test.

#530 Posted by hoosier7 (3981 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@clyde46 said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

actually that's a good point. I am going to go with 1080P monitors, so 120/144Hz monitors might be the way to go.

But that 27in!

i'll probably go for 24 or 27 inches. the other video output will be into 1080P60 televisions, 32 inch.

I'm thinking of buying too. What's better guys, 1440p or 120hz? There doesn't seem to be a decent price monitor that does both so i don't know what do go for?

#531 Edited by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

didnt imply that at all, i just stated its a colossal waste of processing power.

You may want to read over your post again. You asked why you would want to, which implies that you could.

At the end of the day, the PS4 couldn't, and TR PS4 is actually quite decent looking (personal experience).

#532 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

@hoosier7: well they're different trade offs. if you've looked into it you probably know what they are already.

1440p, assuming you buy a 60 Hz monitor, what you're getting is 78% more pixels to render. so it will be much sharper. if i was going to use the monitor for productivity purposes too, this is the one i'd go for. those extra pixels are fantastic during some workflows such as photoshopping, premiere pro etc.

120/144Hz, assuming you buy a 1080P monitor, what you're getting is double, or a bit over double the framerate. it's harder to render than 1440p however you'll see something different then a more highly detailed scene through more pixels, you'll see frames more frequently so it appears smoother, and input sensitive games like twitch shooters would benefit the most. some games it might be a waste of time. in windows you do notice things like the cursor behave more smoothly.

so i consider both pretty different. i'm thinking i'll go 120 fps, because i suspect 4k monitors will drop in price significantly - so in the future if i want a pixel rich display, i'll go for one of those.

but yeah, i could easily see someone choosing 1440p over 120 fps. it's a personal thing.

#533 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Can your PC do this?

No? I mean seriously you don't think that anyone is jealous that your overpriced PC can play Tombraider in 100 fps do you? lol!

Destiny? No. Games that aren't on consoles? Yes.

BTW, those screens are terribad, so you aren't helping your argument.

#534 Edited by m3dude1 (1649 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@m3dude1 said:

didnt imply that at all, i just stated its a colossal waste of processing power.

You may want to read over your post again. You asked why you would want to, which implies that you could.

At the end of the day, the PS4 couldn't, and TR PS4 is actually quite decent looking (personal experience).

nah it just implies that its a huge waste and if the ps4 had the power to run at 150 fps the developers would just dramatically up the visuals.

its not an argument of the ps4 being more powerful than a high end pc, its an argument of pc software being horribly coded shit.

#535 Edited by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

nah it just implies that its a huge waste and if the ps4 had the power to run at 150 fps the developers would just dramatically up the visuals.

Again, read your own posts. Your English is obviously lacking.

#536 Posted by clyde46 (47610 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@m3dude1 said:

nah it just implies that its a huge waste and if the ps4 had the power to run at 150 fps the developers would just dramatically up the visuals.

Again, red your own posts. Your English is obviously lacking.

*read.

#537 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

*read.

I knew someone would catch it. I get a pass, because i'm around 8 beers in.

#538 Posted by Vaasman (11812 posts) -

@lundy86_4 said:

@m3dude1 said:

didnt imply that at all, i just stated its a colossal waste of processing power.

You may want to read over your post again. You asked why you would want to, which implies that you could.

At the end of the day, the PS4 couldn't, and TR PS4 is actually quite decent looking (personal experience).

Except for the messed up Lara that is. Weird face Mcgee isn't quite as fun to play as.

#539 Posted by hoosier7 (3981 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@hoosier7: well they're different trade offs. if you've looked into it you probably know what they are already.

1440p, assuming you buy a 60 Hz monitor, what you're getting is 78% more pixels to render. so it will be much sharper. if i was going to use the monitor for productivity purposes too, this is the one i'd go for. those extra pixels are fantastic during some workflows such as photoshopping, premiere pro etc.

120/144Hz, assuming you buy a 1080P monitor, what you're getting is double, or a bit over double the framerate. it's harder to render than 1440p however you'll see something different then a more highly detailed scene through more pixels, you'll see frames more frequently so it appears smoother, and input sensitive games like twitch shooters would benefit the most. some games it might be a waste of time. in windows you do notice things like the cursor behave more smoothly.

so i consider both pretty different. i'm thinking i'll go 120 fps, because i suspect 4k monitors will drop in price significantly - so in the future if i want a pixel rich display, i'll go for one of those.

but yeah, i could easily see someone choosing 1440p over 120 fps. it's a personal thing.

Thanks, i might put it off for 4k, i play a fair amount of slower games like strategy games (never MP so nothing intense like Starcraft) so i think res might take priority. I've just never had the chance to try both which is a shame and have only just got the PC to even consider it.

#540 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@Vaasman said:

Except for the messed up Lara that is. Weird face Mcgee isn't quite as fun to play as.

It's actually not too bad when playing the game, though it's not as good as the original. Those screwed up screenshots were hilarious, mind you.

#541 Edited by SentientMind (361 posts) -

Oh my god, is this thread still going ? The entire argument against Crysis 3, was that while it's the best looking game to date, it's not as technically advanced because it has the same "fundamental assets". - A cow's words, not mine.

Crysis 3 is actually more technically advanced though in just about every category. So unless some cows can post some shots of KZ that compare to these Crysis 3 shots below, then this is all pointless.

/Thread

#543 Edited by Dasein808 (575 posts) -

@Pray_to_me: I won't call them "terribad," but they're not anything that spectacular.

They both look like hazy matte paintings from the set of the original Star Wars movie. The character model looks somewhat realistic, but the background looks like a watercolor.

Aww, did I make some of you angy?

Allow me to return the flagging favors, but I fully expect the mods of this console site to ignore my flagging.

#544 Posted by BldgIrsh (3000 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

@lundy86_4 said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Can your PC do this?

No? I mean seriously you don't think that anyone is jealous that your overpriced PC can play Tombraider in 100 fps do you? lol!

Destiny? No. Games that aren't on consoles? Yes.

BTW, those screens are terribad, so you aren't helping your argument.

Terribad? Your opinion might hold sway if you weren't a MS fantool.

You posted some crappy KZ:SF screenshots saying they were better than the Crysis 3 shots... you lost all your credentials from that post.

#545 Posted by topgunmv (10377 posts) -

@miiiiv said:

Here's a couple of BF4 multiplayer pics, a game with proper draw and lod distance. Notice that things in rock throwing distance isn't a blurry mess or covered in fog.

Even Crysis 3 has pretty good draw and lod distance.

And the first Crysis game from 2007 displays some really good draw and lod distand. Larger in scale even than later Crysis 3 levels as Crysis 1 wasn't made with console ports in mind.

I'm not even going to bring up Arma 3 as it's in a league of its own.

Not saying that the ps4 is incapable of having good graphics without compromises in draw and/or lod distance, it's up to developers what focus points to choose.

There's still lod scaling though, that's my point. If someone were compelled to, they could go through those pictures circling every low poly corner and low detail texture.

I have noticed that infamous and killzone have aggressive scaling, but I think the higher detail afforded to everything at close and medium ranges make up for it, and unless you look at stills and meticulously circle the flaws, the end result looks very good.

Also lets not forget about what you can't see in screenshots: the animations. I was looking at psycho outside of a cutscene and his blink animation is literally 2 frames, it was actually a bit jarring.

#546 Posted by lundy86_4 (44340 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Terribad? Your opinion might hold sway if you weren't a MS fantool.

Please, please prove that lol. Look into my history.

#547 Posted by lostrib (42875 posts) -

@lglz1337 said:

yup spot on, nicely executed thread TC

however this will obviously rustle some jimmies in the pc master race camp!

right? they will tell you ps4 has a weak laptop CPU, but what they don't tell you is ps4 is build in perfect harmony!

@lostrib and @MonsieurX

UC4 and the order does indeed look better than any XposBone and PC game!

Titan uppercut delivered, now it's your turn pc master race!

i'll wait!

still waiting on that proof

#548 Posted by Jankarcop (10791 posts) -

@m3dude1:

Are you suggesting this will be the first gen ever were console surpasses PC graphically?

Looool. Keep the dream alive.

#549 Posted by airshocker (31000 posts) -

System Wars. You will never find a more wretched hive of trolls and stupidity.

#550 Posted by uninspiredcup (12882 posts) -

@SentientMind said:

Oh my god, is this thread still going ? The entire argument against Crysis 3, was that while it's the best looking game to date, it's not as technically advanced because it has the same "fundamental assets". - A cow's words, not mine.

Crysis 3 is actually more technically advanced though in just about every category. So unless some cows can post some shots of KZ that compare to these Crysis 3 shots below, then this is all pointless.

/Thread

This looks amazing and life changing.

Seems like Crysis really is the best.