Uncharted 4 and The Order surpass any PC games graphically.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#751 Posted by Snugenz (11675 posts) -

@gpuking said:

Man DC's lighting and environment are at least a couple gens ahead of the competition.

Why is this thread still going when it was started by someone who talks this ^ much bullshit?

#752 Edited by BldgIrsh (1212 posts) -

@Snugenz: It's basically 4 delusional cows trying to justify the TC that keeps the thread going.

#753 Posted by Motokid6 (5094 posts) -

16 pages of monkeys throwing feces at eachother. ... Simply astounding.

#754 Edited by SentientMind (342 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 : Here's the thing, there's not really such a thing as next gen assets, there are just good assets and bad assets. You are also also overlooking the fact that Crytek has the ability, basically a slider to drop the polycount, and other things on an asset to bring it down to console level.

@walloftruth Considering it was built from the ground up on pc, it's likely they just down scaled for the 360/PS3 version. The majority of the assets in Crysis 3 are beautiful, and of course their are bad textures everyonce and a while, but the majority of the game, is pretty close to perfection in that regard. And when it comes to the technology behind the game, especially the lighting, it's above the rest. It uses next gen real time GI, while KZ has baked in GI, just like the lighting in most last gen console games. Crysis 3 uses most of the elements of PBR, as does KZ. Crysis 3 has real time reflections, area lights, tessellation, you can go on and on with all the tech they are using.

The awful foliage in Killzone is enough for Crysis 3 to win. the grass, water, trees, plants etc. look lifelike in Crysis 3. in KZ they look like a cartoon.

#755 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 : Here's the thing, there's not really such a thing as next gen assets, there are just good assets and bad assets. You are also also overlooking the fact that Crytek has the ability, basically a slider to drop the polycount, and other things on an asset to bring it down to console level.

@walloftruth Considering it was built from the ground up on pc, it's likely they just down scaled for the 360/PS3 version. The majority of the assets in Crysis 3 are beautiful, and of course their are bad textures everyonce and a while, but the majority of the game, is pretty close to perfection in that regard. And when it comes to the technology behind the game, especially the lighting, it's above the rest. It uses next gen real time GI, while KZ has baked in GI, just like the lighting in most last gen console games. Crysis 3 uses most of the elements of PBR, as does KZ. Crysis 3 has real time reflections, area lights, tessellation, you can go on and on with all the tech they are using.

The awful foliage in Killzone is enough for Crysis 3 to win. the grass, water, trees, plants etc. look lifelike in Crysis 3. in KZ they look like a cartoon.

If you think that Crysis 3 foliage and water is enough to beat every game then so be it. But I do agree that those things are much better in Crysis 3 than Killzone. Better than any game in fact. Also, Crytek state that Ryse, an 8th gen game, was their first title to fully use PBR.

http://dev.dualshockers.com:8000/2013/11/28/crytek-on-ryse-cryengine-and-the-xbox-one-have-let-our-game-be-the-hot-one-at-the-launch-prom/

"Honestly, the engine has been one of the smoothest parts of the whole project. From the time of Crysis 2 we were working with DX11 already. We were two games deep with DX11 and working with a 360 game learning about how the ecosystem works. So that all helped."

"I think it was about a week to get up and running on Xbox One from the time we got the first kits. Having a great partnership with Microsoft helped, to prepare us as the platform developed alongside our game. Any launch game lands hot; it doesn’t matter who you are."

"But having a mature engine really helped, and getting to harness things like physically based rendering was incredible. Improvements in facial animation pipelines are great too. It’s a terrible way to say it, but CryEngine and the Xbox One have let our game be the hot one at the launch prom."

They couldn't do it fully on Crysis 3 because that would require all assets to be changed and they were low on time and money to do so. They were able to with Ryse on their updated Cry Engine because the game was built from the ground up with modern assets that warranted PBR. Some of the base line principles of PBR are present in Crysis 2 and 3 such as Image based lighting, but isn't uses consistently throughout.

Also, you keep saying Crysis 3 assets never need to be better. Well Cevat Yerli disagrees.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crytek-the-next-generation

Digital Foundry: "Finally, are you working on CryEngine 4? Or will continue to evolve CE3? The current focus from most developers is on physically based rendering - where do you think we'll go from there?"

Cevat Yerli: "Going forward, as we have announced at Gamescom, we've dropped the numbers from CryEngine and will keep providing the engine as a frequently updated service for developers. CryEngine will always evolve and improve. There are many research directions besides fully physical-based rendering and shading, and we still have quite some work before we reach a cinematic/photo-realistic world that's consistent in every area. Character animation, for example, has a long, long way to go before hitting realistic and believable quality on all fronts."

"The future will not be just about realism though, but also about new kinds of artistic expressions. The next few years will be great times for the PC community and console gamers. In a talk I gave about the future of computer graphics in 2008, I said that the next-gen consoles would arrive in 2012/2013, and that we'd receive CG-quality rendering of games. These consoles will provide us a baseline to not just deliver that, but over the years to go beyond it. We will close the gap more and more between CG animation that people see and CG-quality games that they can play."

So there you have it. Crysis 3 is by no means perfect and Crytek are not content on stopping there. They have already surpassed it in assets with Ryse by quite a margin. Not just Cevat says this, but the Metro LL dev, and may others. Naughty Dog have also explained the sheer amount of things these new consoles have opened up for real time graphics. Uncharted 4 is more than just Uncharted 3 with better lighting and textures, it's assets are the first noticeable improvements from the trailer. real time graphics has a long way to travel still. But the main thing developers are excited about with these new consoles is not lighting and textures, because PC's have allowed that for years without these consoles, but in assets such as Geometry, Character models, Animations (not just characters but everything on screen), AI, and other things of this nature. Expect Cryteks next big budget FPS or what ever to be a big leap above Crysis 3. That's all I'm saying.

#756 Posted by SentientMind (342 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 : They said they were already basically using PBR in Crysis 3, I know you saw the link to that earlier in the thread. Of course we can get closer to CGI, but he didn't say anything about assets, like you are implying he did. Lighting is the biggest step towards realism. You can take a car asset out of battlefield 4, give it lifelike textures, realtime reflections and ray traced lighting, and it will look real. I know this because I did the same thing with assets in CE3. Getting the right textures, and getting the lighting right, so that the car looked real.

Cevat Yerli also said he thought Crysis 3 would be the best looking game on the market for 3 years like Crysis was, he must have though Crysis 3 looked better than Ryse, because he clearly knew about it, and even implied that in the interview.

Again, I don't disagree that UC4 and possibly the Order, beat Crysis 3. Those are both very impressive. I'm just saying based off my experience working in graphics engine's, and working with a lot of assets and textures, and especially lighting, Crysis 3 is still ahead of current PS4 games. Not UC4 though, ND did a damn good job on that. It should also be mentioned that sometimes, no matter what's running behind the scenes, one game just looks better, that could be because less is going on, but it doesn't change the fact that one clearly looks better/more real. I see this case with a game like BF4, it's not crazy impressive in SP or anything, but their lighting just works so well for the realistic look. BF4 has scenes that look almost photorealistic at times.

#757 Edited by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 : They said they were already basically using PBR in Crysis 3, I know you saw the link to that earlier in the thread. Of course we can get closer to CGI, but he didn't say anything about assets, like you are implying he did. Lighting is the biggest step towards realism. You can take a car asset out of battlefield 4, give it lifelike textures, realtime reflections and ray traced lighting, and it will look real. I know this because I did the same thing with assets in CE3. Getting the right textures, and getting the lighting right, so that the car looked real.

Cevat Yerli also said he thought Crysis 3 would be the best looking game on the market for 3 years like Crysis was, he must have though Crysis 3 looked better than Ryse, because he clearly knew about it, and even implied that in the interview.

Again, I don't disagree that UC4 and possibly the Order, beat Crysis 3. Those are both very impressive. I'm just saying based off my experience working in graphics engine's, and working with a lot of assets and textures, and especially lighting, Crysis 3 is still ahead of current PS4 games. Not UC4 though, ND did a damn good job on that. It should also be mentioned that sometimes, no matter what's running behind the scenes, one game just looks better, that could be because less is going on, but it doesn't change the fact that one clearly looks better/more real. I see this case with a game like BF4, it's not crazy impressive in SP or anything, but their lighting just works so well for the realistic look. BF4 has scenes that look almost photorealistic at times.

Okay so enough with the conversation on assets. You have your opinion, I have mine. We will never agree there it seems. I'm just stating what is factually going to happen with real time graphics as a result of the release of 8th generation consoles. Both the Order and UC4 have already showcased 3D models, animations, and geometry far beyond any current title. You saying Cevat 'must have thought Crysis 3 is better than Ryse' is conjecture entirely. But what ever. Crysis 3 uses less advanced shaders than Ryse also. And rocks, models and animations are far behind it. The higher polygon budget will be taken advantage of in next gen titles and Infamous, Ryse, Killzone, UC4, The Order, The Witcher 3, Batman AK, Star Citizen all prove this. Star Citizen isn't next gen, as it is a PC exclusive, but it has the polygon budgets of next gen and beyond it.

Also it's probably worth mentioning that Uncharted 4 will most likely not feature as advanced lighting tech as what is found in Crysis 3. Does that mean it can't possibly be better graphics? Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. The assets are far too detailed in mesh and fluidity in UC4 and again the lighting seems sufficient in UC4 any way regardless of Cryteks lighting being more advanced on paper. Diminishing returns happens in every thing, not just polygons.

#758 Posted by mikhail (881 posts) -

Star Citizen isn't next gen, as it is a PC exclusive, but it has the polygon budgets of next gen and beyond it.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Since PC's have far superior hardware available than any console, that is the exact definition of next gen.

The PS4 and Xbox One are current gen.

#759 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -
@mikhail said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Star Citizen isn't next gen, as it is a PC exclusive, but it has the polygon budgets of next gen and beyond it.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Since PC's have far superior hardware available than any console, that is the exact definition of next gen.

The PS4 and Xbox One are current gen.

The concept of gens is a console phenomenon. From the Magnovox Oddysey, to the PS4/XB1/Wii U. We are now in the 8th Gen. PC's largely get console ports with added effects, so in a sense, they also follow the generation advancements. But in the case of Star Citizen, or Crysis 1, they are bug budget PC exclusives focusing on graphics with no limitations from the consoles. So Crysis 1 came out during the 7th gen, but had graphics that 7th gen consoles simply couldn't synthasize because it was made for more powerful hardware from the ground up. Like gen 7.5 in a sense. Star Citizen is much the same. It is gen 8.5. It's polygon count is beyond any game in recorded history, and it showcases many effects that no other game has seen yet.

#760 Edited by SentientMind (342 posts) -

Totally forgot about Star Wars Battlefront

#761 Edited by m3dude1 (1020 posts) -

the game will never look like that. lol dice and lol frostbite 3

#762 Edited by Pray_to_me (2792 posts) -

Mmm the Hermit butthurt in this thread is so tight and ripe.

Feel the pounding. Love it.

#763 Posted by SentientMind (342 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

the game will never look like that. lol dice and lol frostbite 3

Well it said it was in engine, just like UC4, so i'm guessing you're just a hypocrite ? Or harboring a delusional bias

#764 Posted by Suppaman100 (3693 posts) -

Lol, Grade A trolling OP!

#765 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

Arguing that 8th gen console games are better looking then high end 7th gen PC games when most of the current 8th games are running on tweaked 7th gen game engines.

Cows...

#766 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

Mmm the Hermit butthurt in this thread is so tight and ripe.

Feel the pounding. Love it.

Dat detail and lighting. No wonder a lot of hermits in this thread are butthurt. They really need to chill, they'll eventually get true gen 8 games that will match or beat KZSF in due time. All they need is for devs to stop porting uprezzed PS3/360 games to PC.

#767 Posted by delta3074 (17744 posts) -

errrr, No.

#768 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

errrr, No.

Agreed......

We've had 'Next Gen' lighting and games that are photorealistic for ages now...

Dat detail and lighting..

#769 Edited by KillzoneSnake (1668 posts) -

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

#770 Edited by hello505 (130 posts) -

I love how the developers cover KZ:SF's shitty visuals with over saturation, just look at those vibrant colors, you'd think you were playing viva pinata. Pathetic game and pathetic cows.

#771 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

Cows have yet to have a AAA 1080p60 game, us Herms have had that pleasure for years ;)

But keep hoping and dreaming

#772 Posted by Ben-Buja (2769 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

I still see console idiots not knowing what they are talking about.

Answer me this, Given that the Uncharted 4 trailer is what the game graphics will be like, can you tell me a PC game that looks better?

How about we wait and see what the actual game will look like when it's released and compare it to games released then.

#773 Posted by m3dude1 (1020 posts) -

@KillzoneSnake said:

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

Cows have yet to have a AAA 1080p60 game, us Herms have had that pleasure for years ;)

But keep hoping and dreaming

you have yet to post the 1440p bf4 ultra 4xaa 4xaaa 115% resolution scaling 60 fps screens i asked for.

#774 Posted by sts106mat (18853 posts) -

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

hahaha Halo 4 looks better than shadowfall at times. Plays better too more importantly

#775 Edited by MiiiiV (286 posts) -

Cows should stop bringing up KZSF in any discussion about graphics. The game has great character models and animations, that's about it, the environments still have lots of blocky edges and it has some really poor lod distance even though it only renders relatively small playable areas and the inability to not even render these pretty small areas with proper lod distance is striking. Everything that is slightly far away but still in rock throwing distance is either a blurry or covered in fog.
Not saying it doesn't look good overall because it does, but it has some major drawbacks in lod and draw distance which should be taken into consideration. Not having several of light sources that cast shadows at the same time is not a big deal though, most other games don't have that either.

#776 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@scatteh316 said:

@KillzoneSnake said:

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

Cows have yet to have a AAA 1080p60 game, us Herms have had that pleasure for years ;)

But keep hoping and dreaming

you have yet to post the 1440p bf4 ultra 4xaa 4xaaa 115% resolution scaling 60 fps screens i asked for.

There's no point, I've seen others post shots and all people have done is talk shit about the screens, this is system wars so I shouldn't of expected any less.

And you're single digit comment is still..well.... we won't go there.

#777 Posted by NFJSupreme (5111 posts) -

Same four cows talking to each other. U guys are sad.

#778 Posted by gpuking (2709 posts) -

I feel sorry for the stubborn hermits who can't appreciate new gen graphics and assets, instead they linger on retro shaders in Crysis 3 while keep pretending it's flawless. This is like a bad case of mid life "crysis" lol.

#779 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

Killzone isn't all that... Just look at the texture detail and resolution from some in-gameplay shots I found on Google Images.

And look at the sheer detail of the textures of Crysis 3, even when you get closer to the textures the detail remains.

There's many hard polygon edges in that first Killzone shot and what is up with the image quality?

*Waits for Cows to complain about the screen shots used and come up with some lame excuse*

#780 Posted by gpuking (2709 posts) -

Er, the texture quality looks the same for both except KZ has more geometry in the environment and more detailed overall.

#781 Edited by StormyJoe (4733 posts) -

@gpuking: saying a console can out perform the "PC" is the quintesential example of self ownage. I hate playing games on a PC, but facts are facts.

#782 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

@gpuking said:

Er, the texture quality looks the same for both except KZ has more geometry in the environment and more detailed overall.

No they're not, the textures in those Killzone shots were god damn horrible compared to Crysis 3.

And more geometry? Yes I know because I see all the polygon edges.

#783 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

#784 Edited by SentientMind (342 posts) -

@scatteh316 said:

@gpuking said:

Er, the texture quality looks the same for both except KZ has more geometry in the environment and more detailed overall.

No they're not, the textures in those Killzone shots were god damn horrible compared to Crysis 3.

And more geometry? Yes I know because I see all the polygon edges.

Maybe they should get back to us when they can actually get an fps with real GI, until then it's just embarrassing how delusional they are. Not to mention the in engine star wars gameplay looked as good as Uncharted, but who knows if it will actually look like that, because it's "in-engine" just like um.. UC4

#785 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

@scatteh316 said:

@gpuking said:

Er, the texture quality looks the same for both except KZ has more geometry in the environment and more detailed overall.

No they're not, the textures in those Killzone shots were god damn horrible compared to Crysis 3.

And more geometry? Yes I know because I see all the polygon edges.

Maybe they should get back to us when they can actually get an fps with real GI, until then it's just embarrassing how delusional they are. Not to mention the in engine star wars gameplay looked as good as Uncharted, but who knows if it will actually look like that, because it's "in-engine" just like um.. UC4

We've also had GI in FPS games for YEARS, STALKER series has an option in the config file to enable GI for all light sources.

#786 Posted by MonsieurX (29157 posts) -

@gpuking said:

I feel sorry for the stubborn hermits who can't appreciate new gen graphics and assets, instead they linger on retro shaders in Crysis 3 while keep pretending it's flawless. This is like a bad case of mid life "crysis" lol.

Poor cows that feel so "awwwed" from the jump of PS3 to PS4

#787 Edited by Pray_to_me (2792 posts) -

Killzone isn't all that... Just look at the texture detail and resolution from some in-gameplay shots I found on Google Images.

And look at the sheer detail of the textures of Crysis 3, even when you get closer to the textures the detail remains.

There's many hard polygon edges in that first Killzone shot and what is up with the image quality?

*Waits for Cows to complain about the screen shots used and come up with some lame excuse*

Lol That looks like shit.

That's how you texture bish. And stop spamming your 3 fugly pics.

#788 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Mmm the Hermit butthurt in this thread is so tight and ripe.

Feel the pounding. Love it.

Dat detail and lighting. No wonder a lot of hermits in this thread are butthurt. They really need to chill, they'll eventually get true gen 8 games that will match or beat KZSF in due time. All they need is for devs to stop porting uprezzed PS3/360 games to PC.

That's the ticket. That's the ticket. They won't accept it, but that's the ticket.

#789 Edited by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -
@miiiiv said:

Cows should stop bringing up KZSF in any discussion about graphics. The game has great character models and animations, that's about it, the environments still have lots of blocky edges and it has some really poor lod distance even though it only renders relatively small playable areas and the inability to not even render these pretty small areas with proper lod distance is striking. Everything that is slightly far away but still in rock throwing distance is either a blurry or covered in fog.

Not saying it doesn't look good overall because it does, but it has some major drawbacks in lod and draw distance which should be taken into consideration. Not having several of light sources that cast shadows at the same time is not a big deal though, most other games don't have that either.

What you don't seem to grasp is that KZSF assets are far beyond Crysis 3's. Far bigger polygon budget. You probably haven't got the game and all your opinions are based on conjecture.

You just don't come across assets that blocky in KZSF no matter how hard you try and find them. And if you do, they are little rocks and smaller details. Any rocks of that size in KZ are far more detailed than that. Also, the texture map is far worse on Crysis 3 rocks. As for draw distance in PS4 games..

It isn't ground breaking on Infamous sure, but the fact is that 11 million polygons per frame are being rendered at any given time on the game. That's a very geometrically dense game.

#790 Edited by AzatiS (7097 posts) -

PS4 does a hell of a job right now graphics wise .. no doubt. For 399$ that is. The question is for how long will be on par with a mid range PC ? 1 more year , 2 ? Then ....not even close. PS4 will become stale but PC wont ... Even as we speak there are mid range PCs that literally can destroy this gens consoles power wise ...its just to early , games wise to show it , thats all.

For example .... GTA 5 mods will push PCs to their limits and then we gonna see some big differences or other next-gen games like Witcher 3.

#791 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (9664 posts) -

How do people not see this is just bait to get attention, over 700 posts and people still haven't learned... Come on people !

and what do the mods have to say about this ?

#792 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

Cows posting the same shots over and over and over and over.....

And you guys want to talk textures? Really? Do you really want to there?

And as for Infamous? Please, I've already posted shots of Watch Dogs in the screen shot thread that completely blow the shit of any Infamous screen shot ever posted.

Even moded Doom 3 holds it own visually against crapzone...lol

But but the poly counts.. I can litrally circle polygon edges in the screens shots posted by cows.

You guys are so hyper because the gap between PS3 and PS4 is so fucking big that you don't know how to contain yourselfs so you constantly make theads as a release.

Hermits have had these visuals for YEARS... welcome to 2010!!!

Sit sit down and cherish your precious resolution while you can as developers will soon start sacrificing them pixels for effects as time goes by.

#793 Posted by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

@miiiiv said:

Cows should stop bringing up KZSF in any discussion about graphics. The game has great character models and animations, that's about it, the environments still have lots of blocky edges and it has some really poor lod distance even though it only renders relatively small playable areas and the inability to not even render these pretty small areas with proper lod distance is striking. Everything that is slightly far away but still in rock throwing distance is either a blurry or covered in fog.

Not saying it doesn't look good overall because it does, but it has some major drawbacks in lod and draw distance which should be taken into consideration. Not having several of light sources that cast shadows at the same time is not a big deal though, most other games don't have that either.

What you don't seem to grasp is that KZSF assets are far beyond Crysis 3's. Far bigger polygon budget. You probably haven't got the game and all your opinions are based on conjecture.

You just don't come across assets that blocky in KZSF no matter how hard you try and find them. And if you do, they are little rocks and smaller details. Any rocks of that size in KZ are far more detailed than that. Also, the texture map is far worse on Crysis 3 rocks. As for draw distance in PS4 games..

It isn't ground breaking on Infamous sure, but the fact is that 11 million polygons per frame are being rendered at any given time on the game. That's a very geometrically dense game.

The Infamous pictures: Shadow LOD is poor, there's no AF filtering AT ALL, the top of the bollards have visible polygon edges, the texture LOD on the buildings is fucking shocking, even buildings that are relatively close!! And that city wide shot? The LOD is soooooo bad it's laughable.

The Crysis 3 shots? Keep posting console shots as it's obviously making you feel better lol

And the killzone shots? The image quality is atrocious, the texture's are FLAT! ( Very noticeable in the floor on the first picture ) the foliage quality is laughable and on top of that I could literally spend AGES circling all the polygon edges.

#794 Edited by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -

The Infamous pictures: Shadow LOD is poor, there's no AF filtering AT ALL, the top of the bollards have visible polygon edges, the texture LOD on the buildings is fucking shocking, even buildings that are relatively close!! And that city wide shot? The LOD is soooooo bad it's laughable.

The Crysis 3 shots? Keep posting console shots as it's obviously making you feel better lol

And the killzone shots? The image quality is atrocious, the texture's are FLAT! ( Very noticeable in the floor on the first picture ) the foliage quality is laughable and on top of that I could literally spend AGES circling all the polygon edges.

It is clear now from your last two posts that your just in this for troll baiting. Everything has polygon edges, but the fact is that games like Ryse, Killzone SF, Infamous SS, The Order, Uncharted 4, The Witcher 3, Batman AK, Assassins Creed Unity, all have far more geometric detail than their last gen counterparts. Another fact is that Infamous displays far far more polygons on screen than WD. You might like how WD looks better than ISS. That's up to you. But then how far does this opinion go? Does the PS4 version of WD look better than Infamous SS to you? Or does the PC version with the only differences being in resolution and DOF effects make all the difference of being so much more graphically advanced than ISS? Infamous has a really good art style. And looks great. To dispute that is either a sign of insecurity, or trolling.

Also that Crysis 3 shot is the PC version. So there you go. Look on DF's site about it. None of the assets were changed in Crysis 3 PC from the console version. You would know this if you knew about how games were made. Do you really think Crytek were going to make a whole different mesh of objects throughout just for the enthusiast PC market? Nope. Cevat Yerli says that last gen consoles held Crysis 3 back. He was not lying.

#795 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@scatteh316 said:

The Infamous pictures: Shadow LOD is poor, there's no AF filtering AT ALL, the top of the bollards have visible polygon edges, the texture LOD on the buildings is fucking shocking, even buildings that are relatively close!! And that city wide shot? The LOD is soooooo bad it's laughable.

The Crysis 3 shots? Keep posting console shots as it's obviously making you feel better lol

And the killzone shots? The image quality is atrocious, the texture's are FLAT! ( Very noticeable in the floor on the first picture ) the foliage quality is laughable and on top of that I could literally spend AGES circling all the polygon edges.

It is clear now from your last two posts that your just in this for troll baiting. Everything has polygon edges, but the fact is that games like Ryse, Killzone SF, Infamous SS, The Order, Uncharted 4, The Witcher 3, Batman AK, Assassins Creed Unity, all have far more geometric detail than their last gen counterparts. Another fact is that Infamous displays far far more polygons on screen than WD. You might like how WD looks better than ISS. That's up to you. But then how far does this opinion go? Does the PS4 version of WD look better than Infamous SS to you? Or does the PC version with the only differences being in resolution and DOF effects make all the difference of being so much more graphically advanced than ISS? Infamous has a really good art style. And looks great. To dispute that is either a sign of insecurity, or trolling.

Also that Crysis 3 shot is the PC version. So there you go. Look on DF's site about it. None of the assets were changed in Crysis 3 PC from the console version. You would know this if you knew about how games were made. Do you really think Crytek were going to make a whole different mesh of objects throughout just for the enthusiast PC market? Nope. Cevat Yerli says that last gen consoles held Crysis 3 back. He was not lying.

Of course the assest were changed, only a moron would say that. Unless the PS3 and 360 versions had pixel accurate displacement mapping, tessellation.....etc...etc..

And were those shot's supposed to be impressive? Infamous does look good but not amazingly spectacular like most idiotic cows flaunt it around as being.

A game with good graphics and a game that deserves the title of graphics king is a game that has CONSISTENT graphics quality in ALL aspects.

Infamous has great particles with some decent tecture work complemented by an half decent lighting engine but everything else is meh... shadows, LOD, filtering..... It's not CONSISTENT enough across the board to be classed as a graphics king.

Killzone has some half decent texture work, nice lighting and some decent character models but it has piss poor IQ, texture quality is VERY inconsistent, there's no filtering, poor prop quality and can have a lot of visible polygon edges. Again not consistent enough to be graphics kings.

Now Crysis 3, textures are very consistent in resolution and quality ( although it does have the odd bad one ) particle effects are very nice and get shadowed, it has a great lighting engine, has good IQ and filtering..I could go on and on.... The quality of each graphical aspect is VERY HIGH AND CONSISTENT.

Hermits are so used to seeing high resolutions, great IQ and filtering and all the bells and whistles enabled that these 'next gen' games just don't 'wow' us as much as you console boys who are not used to seeing them so to you guys they're amazing.

I remember the fuss cows made when they seen that Killzone:SF had occlusion mapping..... it was shouted about from the high heavens, regardless of the fact that Hermits had it years earlier, all the way back in 2007 in fact in a little game called STALKER and Crysis.

#796 Posted by Alienware_fan (1499 posts) -

Ahh poor neckbeards and their one and only cryengine. When will they ever stop posting these??? Give crisis a break LOL.

#797 Edited by scatteh316 (4794 posts) -

Hmmmmmm...

vs

#798 Posted by Krelian-co (10208 posts) -

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

uncharted is actually a good game?

#799 Posted by scottpsfan14 (3120 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@scatteh316 said:

The Infamous pictures: Shadow LOD is poor, there's no AF filtering AT ALL, the top of the bollards have visible polygon edges, the texture LOD on the buildings is fucking shocking, even buildings that are relatively close!! And that city wide shot? The LOD is soooooo bad it's laughable.

The Crysis 3 shots? Keep posting console shots as it's obviously making you feel better lol

And the killzone shots? The image quality is atrocious, the texture's are FLAT! ( Very noticeable in the floor on the first picture ) the foliage quality is laughable and on top of that I could literally spend AGES circling all the polygon edges.

It is clear now from your last two posts that your just in this for troll baiting. Everything has polygon edges, but the fact is that games like Ryse, Killzone SF, Infamous SS, The Order, Uncharted 4, The Witcher 3, Batman AK, Assassins Creed Unity, all have far more geometric detail than their last gen counterparts. Another fact is that Infamous displays far far more polygons on screen than WD. You might like how WD looks better than ISS. That's up to you. But then how far does this opinion go? Does the PS4 version of WD look better than Infamous SS to you? Or does the PC version with the only differences being in resolution and DOF effects make all the difference of being so much more graphically advanced than ISS? Infamous has a really good art style. And looks great. To dispute that is either a sign of insecurity, or trolling.

Also that Crysis 3 shot is the PC version. So there you go. Look on DF's site about it. None of the assets were changed in Crysis 3 PC from the console version. You would know this if you knew about how games were made. Do you really think Crytek were going to make a whole different mesh of objects throughout just for the enthusiast PC market? Nope. Cevat Yerli says that last gen consoles held Crysis 3 back. He was not lying.

Of course the assest were changed, only a moron would say that. Unless the PS3 and 360 versions had pixel accurate displacement mapping, tessellation.....etc...etc..

And were those shot's supposed to be impressive? Infamous does look good but not amazingly spectacular like most idiotic cows flaunt it around as being.

A game with good graphics and a game that deserves the title of graphics king is a game that has CONSISTENT graphics quality in ALL aspects.

Infamous has great particles with some decent tecture work complemented by an half decent lighting engine but everything else is meh... shadows, LOD, filtering..... It's not CONSISTENT enough across the board to be classed as a graphics king.

Killzone has some half decent texture work, nice lighting and some decent character models but it has piss poor IQ, texture quality is VERY inconsistent, there's no filtering, poor prop quality and can have a lot of visible polygon edges. Again not consistent enough to be graphics kings.

Now Crysis 3, textures are very consistent in resolution and quality ( although it does have the odd bad one ) particle effects are very nice and get shadowed, it has a great lighting engine, has good IQ and filtering..I could go on and on.... The quality of each graphical aspect is VERY HIGH AND CONSISTENT.

Hermits are so used to seeing high resolutions, great IQ and filtering and all the bells and whistles enabled that these 'next gen' games just don't 'wow' us as much as you console boys who are not used to seeing them so to you guys they're amazing.

I remember the fuss cows made when they seen that Killzone:SF had occlusion mapping..... it was shouted about from the high heavens, regardless of the fact that Hermits had it years earlier, all the way back in 2007 in fact in a little game called STALKER and Crysis.

Listen, I can see you are simply pissed off at cows how they hype every PS exclusive as graphics king. It's obviously going to ruffle a few hermits feathers. But all I'm doing is trying to explain that 8th gen games are more fundamentally advanced. I'm talking of KZSF, Infamous SS, Ryse, The Order, Uncharted 4, The Witcher 3, Batman AK, Assassins Creed Unity. You will find that Assassins Creed Unity will show a massive improvement over Assassins Creed 4 in terms of over all presentation of graphic assets. Same with Batman AK compared to Batman AC or AO.

Now when I look at Crysis 3 textures, I see certain places with low res textures and some with fantastic PADM effects that give the illusion of depth. This is NOT consistent by any means however. Particle effects are great in Crysis 3 PC such as smoke effects etc. But then so is Killzone SF.

Lighting in Crysis 3 is very nice indeed. But it does not feature PBR in it's entirety like Killzone does. You will find consistent lighting quality throughout Killzone without the need to change asset lighting. It is what all 8th gen games have in common. It has become the standard.

Also. Killzone props and pick-ups have a higher polygon density than Crysis 3's. Also the NPCs are over double the detail and animated far better. This is because, unlike Crysis 3, Killzone did not have to make assets that could be synthesized on an Xbox 360 or PS3. All assets are the same on all versions of the game.

This will show you. Notice the objects and props etc. They are no different on both versions. What you should also remember about infamous is that it is a next gen game of it's genre. Compare it to Infamous 2, or Prototype 2 on PC maxed. There is a massive difference across the board. Now because Crytek wanted to make Crysis 3 on PC a demanding visual game, they added a shit load of effects including, PADM, real time GI, better texures, lighting effects, particle smoke, water reflections, real time screen space reflections, tessellation of foliage and certain objects, skin maps, among other engine related effects. This did make the game far better looking than the console version. Those things generally do. Have you seen what CE3 does to Quake 1? Makes it look like a modern day corridor shooter with state of the art lighting and texture mapping.

All i'm trying to say is, Killzone and other 8th gen titles started with a far better baseline. No assets were held back by the PS3/360. And this is only the beginning of the generation too. There is a long way to travel. But I think you will agree that UC4 is better than UC3 from what we have seen. More than just UC3 with better textures and lighting, but fundamentally more advanced.

#800 Edited by m3dude1 (1020 posts) -

@scatteh316 said:

@m3dude1 said:

@scatteh316 said:

@KillzoneSnake said:

Herms have yet to beat Shadow Fall... how they gonna beat Uncharted 4 lol

Cows have yet to have a AAA 1080p60 game, us Herms have had that pleasure for years ;)

But keep hoping and dreaming

you have yet to post the 1440p bf4 ultra 4xaa 4xaaa 115% resolution scaling 60 fps screens i asked for.

There's no point, I've seen others post shots and all people have done is talk shit about the screens, this is system wars so I shouldn't of expected any less.

And you're single digit comment is still..well.... we won't go there.

sure thing, we all know your claims are bs anyway. pretty much every benchmark on the internet provides a performance reality far far far from your fantasy land numbers. you being unwilling to take less than 5 minutes to post 2 screens of 2 areas on 2 maps is a concession that you were(as usual) talking out of your ass.