W/c do you think would look better? UC4 or RoTR PC?

RotR Ultra PC >>>>>>> UC4 PS4

You two are spewing hot caca and you know it. The models will be the same in both versions.

They both look bland as hell, UC4 and Rise are examples of how a game can push technical boundaries and still look drab as **** because neither Naughty Dog nor CD have any appealing art style or direction. I don't care about how many chest hairs Nathan Drake has, I want something that looks visually appealing.

Interesting. Wonder what DX12 has other than optimizations.. I remember Tess. being a big thing from DX11.

I'm wondering that myself. I think Vxgi based lighting is DX12 exclusive feature. Unreal Engine 4 supports it right now, but don't know when games will use it though. May be Unreal Tournament at some point. Can't say for sure.

Rise of the Tomb Raider will have better ... "ass"ets

It will have unparalleled jiggle and fanny wiggle simulation.

the physics model of the X1 FH2 is on the F5 engine, FH2 360 runs on the 360 difference. there is a MASSIVE difference in the physics. on top of that on tuning...

What a mature adult you must be !

Lol

Pac Man looks better than both

Tomb raider will probably have better hair

Tresemme Xbox One hair. Beautiful, silky, smooth crushed blacks xD

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

how about not using shitty twitch screenshots for graphics comparisons

@lostrib said:

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

how about not using shitty twitch screenshots for graphics comparisons

like it would make the cartoonish 2005 visuals go away

@leandrro said:

@lostrib said:

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

how about not using shitty twitch screenshots for graphics comparisons

like it would make the cartoonish 2005 visuals go away

It would make it so you can actually see what you're looking at, as would showing full scenes rather than just selected corners. At least put some effort into your shit

@lostrib said:

@leandrro said:

@lostrib said:

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

how about not using shitty twitch screenshots for graphics comparisons

like it would make the cartoonish 2005 visuals go away

It would make it so you can actually see what you're looking at, as would showing full scenes rather than just selected corners. At least put some effort into your shit

its not selected corners, its half the screen to get rid of the character and compare the scenery,

check the 1080 x 3700 version here http://i.imgur.com/KhGjqPY.jpg

even comparing to a a IGN fake bullshot the 2007 game looks much more realistic

Why not compare uncharted 4 to XB1 Rise of Tomb Raider?

@leandrro said:

@lostrib said:

@leandrro said:

@lostrib said:

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

how about not using shitty twitch screenshots for graphics comparisons

like it would make the cartoonish 2005 visuals go away

It would make it so you can actually see what you're looking at, as would showing full scenes rather than just selected corners. At least put some effort into your shit

its not selected corners, its half the screen to get rid of the character and compare the scenery,

check the 1080 x 3700 version here http://i.imgur.com/KhGjqPY.jpg

even comparing to a a IGN fake bullshot the 2007 game looks much more realistic

your trolling is bad and you should feel bad

As a moderator on this site, I'd think you'd know better

@razik: I can't have an opinion? It's not like you said anything to contribute to the discussion. You're just attacking authority, not actually making an argument.

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

This UC4 "bullshot" looks comparable enough:

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_uncharted_4_a_thief_s_end-28644-2995_0013.jpg

Crysis 1 very high (DX10/DX9 hack) was the last time I experienced a "Wow!" in graphics though.. everything after that seem like slow upgrades.

It was the biggest leap I experienced in commercial gaming at that time and really enjoyed the Sandbox gameplay.

I want to see a UC4 ToD on your far right example tho (early morning?)

@j2zon2591 said:

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

This UC4 "bullshot" looks comparable enough:

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_uncharted_4_a_thief_s_end-28644-2995_0013.jpg

Crysis 1 very high (DX10/DX9 hack) was the last time I experienced a "Wow!" in graphics though.. everything after that seem like slow upgrades.

It was the biggest leap I experienced in commercial gaming at that time and really enjoyed the Sandbox gameplay.

I want to see a UC4 ToD on your far right example tho (early morning?)

the grasses in this demo and also in the earlier demo of U4 look great, but on average the game still looks very weak, many parts look like a ps3 game

check this other official bullshot from naughtdogs site, they look cartoonish like toystory 1 characters

for comparison, check this other crowd on assassins creed unity on ps4, much bigger , much more detail, and way more believable

acu is far from graphics king but it easily better than u4

@leandrro said:

@j2zon2591 said:

@leandrro said:

uncharted is a great series, but visuals are shit, just comapre crysis 2007 vs u4 2016

This UC4 "bullshot" looks comparable enough:

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_uncharted_4_a_thief_s_end-28644-2995_0013.jpg

Crysis 1 very high (DX10/DX9 hack) was the last time I experienced a "Wow!" in graphics though.. everything after that seem like slow upgrades.

It was the biggest leap I experienced in commercial gaming at that time and really enjoyed the Sandbox gameplay.

I want to see a UC4 ToD on your far right example tho (early morning?)

the grasses in this demo and also in the earlier demo of U4 look great, but on average the game still looks very weak, many parts look like a ps3 game

check this other official bullshot from naughtdogs site, they look cartoonish like toystory 1 characters

for comparison, check this other crowd on assassins creed unity on ps4, much bigger , much more detail, and way more believable

acu is far from graphics king but it easily better than u4

I don't think that's exactly Toy Story in terms of shading/style but I remember ND saying something like still keeping some of shader style from past UC rather than full blown realistic target. Can't remember the article though. I think that's where the cartoony look's coming from.. deliberate it seems.

http://kotaku.com/uncharted-4-could-look-better-says-photographer-1671939172

I wish there'd be color grading option (to neutral) or ToD options (similar to infamous SS) so it has the chance to look closer to the Crysis image on the far right.

ACU, specially on PC, IMO looks fantastic. I love the facial animations from the youtube vids I've watched and the population density seem more impressive.

Isn't the Xbone version different to the 360? I'm sure that RotTR is looking way beyond a 360 port at this point. CD aren't developing the 360 version, completely different engine. RotTR actually looked far better than I expected, in some ways beating out Uncharted 4 despite the alleged artistic talent over at ND. Leading me to believe that if this is a cross gen title, God only knows what their fully current gen games would look like.

Who said it was a completely different engine?

The developers of these TR games have been co-developers for over a decade. There is nothing peculiar or odd with this upcoming Rise of the Tomb Raider other than suddenly people are aware of Nixxes and are trying to claim things like a "completely different engine" randomly for this title, when that's not how Nixxes has ever operated in the past nor for this game. This is standard business. Once upon a time, Rise of the Tomb Raider was going to be for PC, PS3, 360, PS4, and Xbone. Then a deal was struck with M$. It takes a lot of effort to get these games released on multiple machines simultaneously, which is what Nixxes helped accomplish. Activision and EA operate in the same way. What didn't change, besides the temporary shelving of the PC, PS3, PS4 versions, is how Nixxes and Crystal have operated. They've been partners since 2000's release of Soul Reaver.

This is the same developer that handled these games (all Eidos games) as well. They've been partnered with Crystal for over 15 years since the Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver on PS1 (Nixxes handled the Dreamcast port). People didn't suddenly claim that the Dreamcast port of Soul Reaver was a "completely different engine". People didn't make that claim about "different engines" for Tomb Raider Legend, Anniversary, Underworld, Lara Croft, or even the recent Tomb Raider reboot, and all those games have Crystal and Nixxes all over them. The Rebooted Tomb Raider (PS3, 360, PC) found itself ported to the newer PS4 and Xbone, but again, the PS4/Xbone version of Tomb Raider Reboot weren't completely different engines. That's not a good business model. SE is looking to make money and this game isn't suddenly way, way different.

Suddenly though, Rise of the Tomb Raider has a completely different engine? Since when? I'll start with 2006 with a list of Nixxes/Crystal games that marked the separation of the original developer of Tomb Raider, CORE, from TR. Same what happened to CORE, the creators of TR. Crystal took over the TR series (which sucks since Legacy of Kain is what I preferred from them), and that's also when Nixxes worked on TR as well. Nixxes has been partnered with Crystal for every single main Tomb Raider titled game (one exception was Lara Croft Osiris and that wasn't a main TR title game and it didn't release on as many platforms as Osiris).

You are correct in that if you are impressed with a cross gen title like Rise of the Tomb Raider (which I wasn't impressed with it visually at E3, but it looked decent), then you'll definitely be far more impressed when Crystal doesn't have to balance last gen 2005 360 hardware for presumably the next Tomb Raider game. A future time and different game when Crystal and Nixxes have the freedom to go all out, abandoning old hardware limitations (geometry, graphics, AI, etc) to fully exploit the Xbone/PS4.

Wouldn't they also have an option to be more aggressive with graphics due to last gen limitation?

i.e. if old gen hypothetically only "allows 4 people on the scene" then wouldn't devs have more room to pump better shaders, higher geometry for each person, better shadows, denser effects, etc.? No need to invest in AI (CPU resource) or further draw distances/LoDs.. they could give more visual focus due to the smaller scale. I'm imagining how TO1886 may look pretty good because it also doesn't have the scale/active playground of Crysis 1 nor certain Halo entries.

I hope my post didn't come aggressive. It's a genuine question. :(

What's the question?

Let me see if I understand. You are asking if an upcoming future hypothetical game will allow developers to be more aggressive with graphics? Yes, if developers are freed from the constraints of last generation assets, they will have far more freedom. Heck, even with the constraints of last gen hardware, they can still do beautify a game.

We seen these shifts before. For instance, God of War 2 PS2 vs. God of War 2 PS3 Remaster. Then compare the God of War 2 Remastered on PS3 to God of War III PS3. Night and day difference. Many, many other examples. Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2 on PS1. Then Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2x on Xbox, a new generation machine at the time. Then compared to Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3 on PS2. Night and day. It goes on and on. Previous to future Tomb Raiders, Call of Duty, Madden, NHL, Metal Gear Solid, ICO, Batman Arkham games, Shadow of the Colossus, Assassin's Creed, Ratchet and Clank, etc.

As far as how far devs can flex the engine for a cross gen game, that varies per developer and engine. However what we have learned throughout history is they can accomplish far more when they are toggling an older machine (transition between PS1-Dreamcast, N64-GC, PS2-PS3, Xbox-360, and now PS360-PS4/Xbone).

I understand with SO MANY remasters/cross gen titles being pumped out, people are starting to think they have an idea of the graphics these machines are capable of, but the reality is we haven't seen the best stuff yet. We have to get away from the remasters and cross gen games and start seeing games with new engines created solely for PS4/Xbone. Those will be 1st gen titles. We've seen a handful, but that's the beginning as then we will start to see those early, 1st gen titles blossom as optimization happens with future sequels (i.e. comparing Uncharted 1's graphics - Uncharted 3/TLOU graphics, Halo 3 - Halo Reach/4, GeoW1-3, etc). We have some time yet as right now we are seeing way too many cross gen titles (AC, COD, Madden, etc) and remasters as devs work towards creating a full PS4/Xbone only experience (like Batman Arkham Knight, The Order, Bloodborne, Sunset, the upcoming Halo 5, Upcoming Uncharted 4, etc).

Why doesn't anyone post a video?

^ Sorry that I am poor in articulating thoughts.

I'll try to remake my thoughts.

*focus = using appropriate assets for each hardware.

Let's see.

Imagine if a "last gen game design" uses the following constraints by one studio that focuses on last gen:

(small scope)

1 small room

4 people

If another/different studio that focuses on next gen hardware uses the same limited game design of such as small scale then:

(small scope)

1 small very gorgeous room

4 very gorgeous people

If a "next gen game design" uses a wider scope, larger population, more/better AI on set:

(large scope)

1 large okay looking room

16 ok looking people

Sorry if that's confusing. Maybe I'll this one's a better example:

If ND were to hypothetically remake/remaster UC2 (not Bluepoint nor just a TLoU remaster) with time, budget and focus of the whole team and keep its last gen game design (except 3d model, lighting, shaders, effects) like same map size, levels and same scale/number of AIs on screen.. wouldn't it look better than UC4 (because UC4's scale is larger, has to draw more objects, probably has better AI) because they can pour more hardware resources (CPU/GPU) into less objects/scenery?

Thanks in advance for reading.

Don't bother. 90% of the people on this site are idiots. Just use reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace

Okay then fine. Rise Of The Tomb Raider is cross gen. Meaning the folks at Crystal Dynamics are well better than Naughty Dog at pushing hardware, because let me tell you this, RotTR on Xbox One is going to look a gen ahead of Uncharted 3 remaster on PS4. Pretty impressive for a game limited by 2005 hardware.

Rise on the pc looks better then both of those.

Definitely RoTR PC

Well, Rise of the Tomb Raider is cross gen as I've demonstrated.

As far as your comparison, it's flawed because you are comparing a brand new 2015 game that has yet to release developed by main developer Crystal on a new development cycle building off their previous TR work and assets.

You are comparing that upcoming 2015 TR Crystal developed game to a three games package of games from 2007, 2009, and 2011 (in particular the U3 2011 game) that are in development by Bluepoint Games, not the original developer Naughty Dog. Bluepoint have the job of porting three games in a package and it's been described as a daunting task.

So, how can you say Crystal Dynamics are better than Naughty Dog and then point to a 3rd party studio Bluepoint Games work on a last gen port as the reason? You should be pointing to Bluepoint Studios (MGS Collection, Titanfall 360, GOW Collection, etc), but even then that wouldn't be fair since Crystal are making a new game using their old work.

We all know that overtime these developers optimize and improve. Compare Jak 1 to Jak 3, or Halo 1 to Halo 2, Halo 3 to Halo Reach or GTA3 to GTA San Andreas, or Batman AA to Batman AC, Crash Bandicoot 1 to Crash Bandicoot 3, and even Uncharted 1 to The Last of Us, etc. The same developers behind these games. Crystal is using their previous work and improving for Rise. Naughty Dog are busy with Uncharted 4. Bluepoint games was hired to port three old games into a package pronto.

Here's the deal, I follow developers, not brands or franchises. I see movies many times due to the writer or director. I buy a lot of books based on authors. I buy games based on developers, not brands. Music by artist. This information regarding developers like Bluepoint, Nixxes, Crystal Dynamics, Naughty Dog, Bungie, etc. I've had for years. To be honest, I'm not the world's biggest Naughty Dog fan, but accuracy is the name of the game here.

Perhaps the fairest comparison would be to compare The Last of Us Remastered PS4 and Tomb Raider reboot PS4 if you truly want to compare the developers. Or we wait a cycle and hopefully Crystal is done with last gen hardware once Rise TR is released. Then for Crystal's next game (let's call it TR3 to save space) and compare that upcoming hypothetical TR3 game to Naughty Dog's next game Uncharted 5/The Last of Us 2, whatever that game may be.

However, we have history to look back at if you really want to compare. We have loads of Crystals work and Naughty Dog's work on PS1, PS2, & PS3 as well. That's nearly 20 years of history. I can tell you this, in terms of critical acclaim ND has the accolades across multiple gens. If you really want to know which studio is better, there is loads of gaming history to compare...and since was a full grown adult when Crystal and Naughty Dog were brand new studios cranking out games, I have already done those comparisons when they were relevant, just as a consumer that bought loads of Crystal's games many years ago (Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, etc) and Naughty Dogs games many years ago (Jak, etc).