We're in for a real treat graphically this gen

#151 Posted by emgesp (2372 posts) -

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

#152 Posted by Cloud_imperium (4386 posts) -

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

True . Their focus is on PC . There are already better looking last gen games than Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 .

On PC , Witcher 3 is really going to shine .

#153 Edited by GodspellWH (461 posts) -

Ah I see you guys found some gorgeous screen shots for the game.

People still posting screens?

#154 Edited by cfisher2833 (1720 posts) -

@topgunmv said:

@cfisher2833 said:

@DarthRamms said:

@Master_ShakeXXX said:

@DarthRamms said:

@Master_ShakeXXX said:

What's with all of the ARMA pics? That game is uglier than fuck.

It's bland dude. Colorless, drab, lifeless. Looks like shit. There's far better looking PC games out there you guys could be posting screenshots of.

So basically not enough shiny colors to look at

All you have to do to impress console gamers is throw in tons of bloom. They eat that shit up. It's why Halo 4 got a bunch of "Best Graphics" awards from dumbfuck sites like IGN. They literally took a regular looking game, turned up the bloom to 11, and every console gamer in the world pissed themselves.

Also, can we please quit with the photomode Second Son screenshots? It's fucking pathetic. If you want to actually show off the game's graphics, show real time fucking photos. The game itself is decent enough looking that you don't need to whip out bullshit photos. I don't run the fucking PC photos I show through photoshop and add tons of artificial depth of field that wasn't there in the original. Depth of field as well as quality anti-aliasing (which the photo mode also seems to add) is an intensive post processing effect, and to present infamous as if it has this amazing bokeh depth of field throughout the game is just disingenuous.

Lol.

Next people are going to claim photomode uploads screenshots to servers for resampling.

No, but I assume it does add some sort of temporary anti-aliasing. I don't know for certain mind you, but every non-photo mode picture I've seen of the game will have some aliasing even if it's minor, yet the photo mode shots have no visible jaggies. Also, adding quality bokeh depth of field is not nothing. It takes a considerable amount of power to do that in real time. Remember the Watch Dogs downgrade scandal (it feels stupid to call it that, but for lack of a better word...)? One of the biggest differences between the two versions we were shown was the early E3 build's incredible bokeh depth of field. It's not a cheap effect like bloom or lens flare.

My point still stands though: if you're gonna compare graphics, don't use altered photos of the game.

#155 Edited by BloodyTides (151 posts) -

@godspellwh said:

Ah I see you guys found some gorgeous screen shots for the game.

People still posting screens?

WOW the game looks gorgeous and how big is this game?

#156 Edited by topgunmv (10267 posts) -

@cfisher2833 said:

@topgunmv said:

@cfisher2833 said:

@DarthRamms said:

@Master_ShakeXXX said:

@DarthRamms said:

@Master_ShakeXXX said:

What's with all of the ARMA pics? That game is uglier than fuck.

It's bland dude. Colorless, drab, lifeless. Looks like shit. There's far better looking PC games out there you guys could be posting screenshots of.

So basically not enough shiny colors to look at

All you have to do to impress console gamers is throw in tons of bloom. They eat that shit up. It's why Halo 4 got a bunch of "Best Graphics" awards from dumbfuck sites like IGN. They literally took a regular looking game, turned up the bloom to 11, and every console gamer in the world pissed themselves.

Also, can we please quit with the photomode Second Son screenshots? It's fucking pathetic. If you want to actually show off the game's graphics, show real time fucking photos. The game itself is decent enough looking that you don't need to whip out bullshit photos. I don't run the fucking PC photos I show through photoshop and add tons of artificial depth of field that wasn't there in the original. Depth of field as well as quality anti-aliasing (which the photo mode also seems to add) is an intensive post processing effect, and to present infamous as if it has this amazing bokeh depth of field throughout the game is just disingenuous.

Lol.

Next people are going to claim photomode uploads screenshots to servers for resampling.

No, but I assume it does add some sort of temporary anti-aliasing. I don't know for certain mind you, but every non-photo mode picture I've seen of the game will have some aliasing even if it's minor, yet the photo mode shots have no visible jaggies. Also, adding quality bokeh depth of field is not nothing. It takes a considerable amount of power to do that in real time. Remember the Watch Dogs downgrade scandal (it feels stupid to call it that, but for lack of a better word...)? One of the biggest differences between the two versions we were shown was the early E3 build's incredible bokeh depth of field. It's not a cheap effect like bloom or lens flare.

My point still stands though: if you're gonna compare graphics, don't use altered photos of the game.

It's possible photomode is adding AA, but the game isn't exactly a jagfest:

Also the depth of field is still in the game during gameplay, though I wouldn't call it pronounced.

There are spots where it is extreme like in most photomode shots, but that's mostly cut scenes and I think one or two gameplay sequences.

Aside from the DOF, it's pretty representative of what the game looks like.

#157 Posted by GodspellWH (461 posts) -

@bloodytides said:

@godspellwh said:

Ah I see you guys found some gorgeous screen shots for the game.

People still posting screens?

WOW the game looks gorgeous and how big is this game?

270 square kilometers for a single map

#158 Edited by BloodyTides (151 posts) -

@godspellwh said:

@bloodytides said:

@godspellwh said:

Ah I see you guys found some gorgeous screen shots for the game.

People still posting screens?

WOW the game looks gorgeous and how big is this game?

270 square kilometers for a single map

So about 104.25 square miles than that is some scale its got there. I don't think I ever played a open world game that big.

This game truly deserve some praise.

#159 Edited by BattleSpectre (6410 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

you are in a treat graphically every gen if you are a PC gamer.

LOL ;)

/Thread

#160 Edited by BattleSpectre (6410 posts) -

@Wasdie Just a question, are all those pictures taken from a rig running at 4K? I thought my next monitor would be 1440p, but this just shines a new light into my life.

#161 Posted by Motokid6 (5849 posts) -

@BattleSpectre: And Maxwell is gonna make it possible. This time next year well see alot of 4k going around. I imagine the tv's will be a hot topic for the holidays.

#162 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17007 posts) -
@Wasdie said:

Supersampling can be done right in BF4 on the PC. There is a slider to push it up to 200% so you don't need to fiddle with AMD/Nvidia control consoles to force custom resolutions. It can be done though.

BF4 also doesn't have that blue filter that BF3 did. It still has filters, but they are a lot more subtle and unique to each map to give each just a slightly different tone. Those screens clearly have a slight brown/orange tint to them to bring the autumn colors out.

Nice more games should have that feature. it would make games more future proof.

If there is one thing I love about PC gaming, it's the ease at which you can revisit old games.

#163 Posted by napo_sp (294 posts) -

laughable and useless thread, graphics will certainly get better so why the need to state the obvious?

#164 Edited by TheGuardian03 (21990 posts) -

Just wish sony first party focuses more on GAMEPLAY.

#165 Posted by MirkoS77 (7806 posts) -

@Master_ShakeXXX: you want film quality CGI? That probably won't happen for a very long time (if ever) with current tech. It would probably take a fundamental shift in processor design. Film quality CGI is in an entirely different league.

The movie Avatar took forever to render:

"To tackle the task of helping create Avatar, it took the Weta Digital super computers processing up to 1.4 million tasks per day to render the movie, which consisted of processing 8 gigabytes of data per second running 24 hours for over a month. Often each of Avatar’s frames took several hours to render. And when you consider that is just one frame out of 24 for every second of film, you can imagine why the major processing power at Weta Digital was needed."

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/

#166 Edited by scatteh316 (4982 posts) -

@MirkoS77 said:

@Master_ShakeXXX: you want film quality CGI? That probably won't happen for a very long time (if ever) with current tech. It would probably take a fundamental shift in processor design. Film quality CGI is in an entirely different league.

The movie Avatar took forever to render:

"To tackle the task of helping create Avatar, it took the Weta Digital super computers processing up to 1.4 million tasks per day to render the movie, which consisted of processing 8 gigabytes of data per second running 24 hours for over a month. Often each of Avatar’s frames took several hours to render. And when you consider that is just one frame out of 24 for every second of film, you can imagine why the major processing power at Weta Digital was needed."

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/

It won't take as long as you think

https://vimeo.com/14480956

#167 Posted by happyduds77 (1536 posts) -

Arma 3 looks almost photo-realistic, but that's the problem, it's boring realism I much prefer a stylized art style.

#168 Posted by intotheminx (726 posts) -

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

I simply can't imagine such graphical growth with such mediocre hardware. I really believe this will be a short gen.

#169 Edited by emgesp (2372 posts) -

@intotheminx said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

I simply can't imagine such graphical growth with such mediocre hardware. I really believe this will be a short gen.

There will be games on the PS4 that make Killzone Shadow Fall visuals look crappy in comparison. It isn't like Devs have been maxing out PC hardware.

#170 Posted by g0ddyX (3914 posts) -

I think there will be better design and art as graphics are getting better. Gives more options and puts "Sketches into realtime."
Have a look at destiny's artwork for instance.
A lot of graphic intense demanding games are coming on Xbox One and PS4 already and only get better, from a developers hardwork of course.

#171 Edited by Cloud_imperium (4386 posts) -

@scatteh316 said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@Master_ShakeXXX: you want film quality CGI? That probably won't happen for a very long time (if ever) with current tech. It would probably take a fundamental shift in processor design. Film quality CGI is in an entirely different league.

The movie Avatar took forever to render:

"To tackle the task of helping create Avatar, it took the Weta Digital super computers processing up to 1.4 million tasks per day to render the movie, which consisted of processing 8 gigabytes of data per second running 24 hours for over a month. Often each of Avatar’s frames took several hours to render. And when you consider that is just one frame out of 24 for every second of film, you can imagine why the major processing power at Weta Digital was needed."

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/

It won't take as long as you think

https://vimeo.com/14480956

This is tiny area , man . It'll take a lot more power when area is bigger for exploration , full of NPCs , Wind Simulation , Sound Effects , Volumetric Clouds , Dynamic Weather , Soft Shadows , Cloth Physics , Artificial Intelligence and so on . It'll take time until we have fully simulated worlds with Hollywood quality graphics (not just graphics but world with clever AI , better path finding , no bugs , no pop ins , full ecosystem etc) .

And that's not a bad thing , it is good thing actually . It makes us excited , whenever some new hardware comes out which is a lot more powerful than previous hardwares (we all are waiting for maxwell video cards from nVIDIA and next gen cards from AMD) . Sometimes , journey is better than destination . Once we'll have photo realism , then there won't be much to look forward to or be excited about . Yes there will ALWAYS be something to be improved because nothing made by man is ever perfect but still ...

One thing is confirmed that such a huge leap in visuals will be first seen on PC just like Half Life 2 or Original Crysis .

#172 Edited by toughtrasher (244 posts) -

@TheGuardian03 said:

Just wish sony first party focuses more on GAMEPLAY.

I personally thought Infamous was great fun to play, though people disagree with me. I enjoyed it

#173 Edited by CroidX (1181 posts) -

Star Citizen

Will be larger in scale than Arma 3

Assetto Corsa

I expect racing game to look better in the future

#174 Posted by silversix_ (15026 posts) -

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

Quantic releases extremely linear games. Rockstar? What game looks impressive that they've made? i don't know any because most of them are open world. NG may and probably will release a more graphically impressive game but it'll be a corridor shooter, not exactly impressive. What minx said is probably true.

#175 Edited by Gue1 (10445 posts) -

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

but even if they max out the hw there are always ways to improve the art styles and bake more of the stuff that is not relevant to use those resources on more important aspects of the game.

#176 Edited by silversix_ (15026 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

@blackace said:

@Animal-Mother: Games are going to look great no matter what system you own. Luckily I will own all of them before the generation is over. Games always improve over the life of the game console. These has happen with just about every generation, even going back to the Atari 2600. Well for gamers who are old enough to remember that system and how it started and ended. Anyways, we'll see games that look better then Infamous SS and Ryse on all 3 next-gen system before the gen is over.

Ditto. Look at UC1 to UC3 or GeoW to GeoW 3

Amazing leaps.

That is an amazing leap yes, but both, the ps3 and 360 used custom specs that took time to 'unlock'. What is there to unlock when ps4 uses medium range off the shelf pc specs and Xbone with its low end off shelf pc specs? graphics will improve with engines. But i wouldn't expect what we saw last gen when it comes to graphical improvements with time. I'd like to be wrong but how? We know that nothing special is used inside those systems... What is the most impressive thing these two systems have, 5GB of GDDR5 available to games? Not expecting this to go very far lol

#177 Edited by Gue1 (10445 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

@scatteh316 said:

@MirkoS77 said:

@Master_ShakeXXX: you want film quality CGI? That probably won't happen for a very long time (if ever) with current tech. It would probably take a fundamental shift in processor design. Film quality CGI is in an entirely different league.

The movie Avatar took forever to render:

"To tackle the task of helping create Avatar, it took the Weta Digital super computers processing up to 1.4 million tasks per day to render the movie, which consisted of processing 8 gigabytes of data per second running 24 hours for over a month. Often each of Avatar’s frames took several hours to render. And when you consider that is just one frame out of 24 for every second of film, you can imagine why the major processing power at Weta Digital was needed."

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/

It won't take as long as you think

https://vimeo.com/14480956

This is tiny area , man . It'll take a lot more power when area is bigger for exploration , full of NPCs , Wind Simulation , Sound Effects , Volumetric Clouds , Dynamic Weather , Soft Shadows , Cloth Physics , Artificial Intelligence and so on . It'll take time until we have fully simulated worlds with Hollywood quality graphics (not just graphics but world with clever AI , better path finding , no bugs , no pop ins , full ecosystem etc) .

And that's not a bad thing , it is good thing actually . It makes us excited , whenever some new hardware comes out which is a lot more powerful than previous hardwares (we all are waiting for maxwell video cards from nVIDIA and next gen cards from AMD) . Sometimes , journey is better than destination . Once we'll have photo realism , then there won't be much to look forward to or be excited about . Yes there will ALWAYS be something to be improved because nothing made by man is ever perfect but still ...

One thing is confirmed that such a huge leap in visuals will be first seen on PC just like Half Life 2 or Original Crysis .

splendid

#178 Posted by WallofTruth (1777 posts) -

@Animal-Mother said:

Wow @walloftruth THAT'S Minecraft?!

Yes, it's King's Landing from Game of Thrones in Minecraft, it's pretty amazing what people come up with :)

#179 Edited by AznbkdX (3227 posts) -

It all looks pretty good. I know my PC can't do all the fancy things that are put out on some of these screenshots though. They got some serious power under the hood. :/

Now hopefully they make them so they don't bore me. A ton of games that looked great graphically haven't done much for me lately. Not to say I'm dissing all of them but I guess it's just the genres that most of these pretty games fall into is all.

#180 Edited by emgesp (2372 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

Quantic releases extremely linear games. Rockstar? What game looks impressive that they've made? i don't know any because most of them are open world. NG may and probably will release a more graphically impressive game but it'll be a corridor shooter, not exactly impressive. What minx said is probably true.

GTA V looks stunning for an open world game. I will bet money that there will be an open world game that has better visuals than The Witcher 3 on the PS4.

#181 Posted by emgesp (2372 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

but even if they max out the hw there are always ways to improve the art styles and bake more of the stuff that is not relevant to use those resources on more important aspects of the game.

Witcher 3 isn't using high end mo-cap for facial animations. Most likely animations will be average at best in The Witcher 3. The game will feature great texture work and lighting, but there will be a ton of future games on the PS4 that will look better.

#182 Edited by cfisher2833 (1720 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

Quantic releases extremely linear games. Rockstar? What game looks impressive that they've made? i don't know any because most of them are open world. NG may and probably will release a more graphically impressive game but it'll be a corridor shooter, not exactly impressive. What minx said is probably true.

Max Payne 3. On another note, cows really need to quit with this mentality that Sony first party studios have some secret knowledge that no other studio is capable of. That might have been true last gen where the PS3 was using proprietary tech with a very unique architecture that 3rd part devs had to figure out over time, but this time around, it's more of an even playing ground due to the x86 arhitecture. Hell, if anything CDProjeckt RED probably has the advantage given that they've worked extensively in x86 architecture for a long time on the PC, whereas Sony third party studios primarily learned how to code for the PS3 (although they still would have PC knowledge as well).

And no, GTAV was not "stunning." The lighting was nice, but overall the game looked like horseshit. Horrible textures, barren environments, pastel/cartoonish looking characters, aliasing up the ass, and all of this "stunning" glory at a constantly dipping 30fps.

#183 Edited by silversix_ (15026 posts) -

@emgesp said:

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

Quantic releases extremely linear games. Rockstar? What game looks impressive that they've made? i don't know any because most of them are open world. NG may and probably will release a more graphically impressive game but it'll be a corridor shooter, not exactly impressive. What minx said is probably true.

GTA V looks stunning for an open world game. I will bet money that there will be an open world game that has better visuals than The Witcher 3 on the PS4.

See? You had to add "for an open world game". Rockstar doesn't make spectacular looking games, they're making good looking games while being open world. Compare GTA4 pc to TW2, huge difference. You will see better looking games yes and The Order will probably look better but at what cost? a corridor shooter running in 1920x800? TW3 is a huge game and when it comes to games that aren't as linear as Call of Duty i wouldn't expect much better graphics. You can only do so much with a shitty 8 core cpu and a decent $150 gpu. I mean how is this impressive? and you said "stunning" lol. It looks stunning if you were gaming on a pentium 3 or a Wii in 2013.

#184 Edited by silversix_ (15026 posts) -

@cfisher2833 said:

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

Quantic releases extremely linear games. Rockstar? What game looks impressive that they've made? i don't know any because most of them are open world. NG may and probably will release a more graphically impressive game but it'll be a corridor shooter, not exactly impressive. What minx said is probably true.

Max Payne 3. On another note, cows really need to quit with this mentality that Sony first party studios have some secret knowledge that no other studio is capable of. That might have been true last gen where the PS3 was using proprietary tech with a very unique architecture that 3rd part devs had to figure out over time, but this time around, it's more of an even playing ground due to the x86 arhitecture. Hell, if anything CDProjeckt RED probably has the advantage given that they've worked extensively in x86 architecture for a long time on the PC, whereas Sony third party studios primarily learned how to code for the PS3 (although they still would have PC knowledge as well).

And no, GTAV was not "stunning." The lighting was nice, but overall the game looked like horseshit. Horrible textures, barren environments, pastel/cartoonish looking characters, aliasing up the ass, and all of this "stunning" glory at a constantly dipping 30fps.

Max Payne looked good, i had it on 360 n pc but would you consider this an impressive looking game? It looked just 'good' (extremely linear as well), nothing less and nothing more.

#185 Posted by emgesp (2372 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp said:

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp said:

@intotheminx said:

Considering the people from CD Projekt said they feel like they are very close to maxing the PS4's power I'm not impressed. Especially when rumors are that it will be sub 1080p.

I can guarantee that Witcher 3 will not be the best looking game ever on the PS4. A game from Quantic Dream, Rockstar, Naughty Dog or Santa Monica Studios will beat those graphics.

Quantic releases extremely linear games. Rockstar? What game looks impressive that they've made? i don't know any because most of them are open world. NG may and probably will release a more graphically impressive game but it'll be a corridor shooter, not exactly impressive. What minx said is probably true.

GTA V looks stunning for an open world game. I will bet money that there will be an open world game that has better visuals than The Witcher 3 on the PS4.

See? You had to add "for an open world game". Rockstar doesn't make spectacular looking games, they're making good looking games while being open world. Compare GTA4 pc to TW2, huge difference. You will see better looking games yes and The Order will probably look better but at what cost? a corridor shooter running in 1920x800? TW3 is a huge game and when it comes to games that aren't as linear as Call of Duty i wouldn't expect much better graphics. You can only do so much with a shitty 8 core cpu and a decent $150 gpu. I mean how is this impressive? and you said "stunning" lol. It looks stunning if you were gaming on a pentium 3 or a Wii in 2013.

No, I specifically said that there will be an open-world action game with better visuals than The Witcher 3 on the PS4. I'm willing to bet money on that. I've seen Witcher 3 gameplay and the animations are average at best. Was The Witcher 2 the best looking open world game last gen? Exactly.

#186 Posted by silversix_ (15026 posts) -

@emgesp: what was the best looking open world game last gen? Unless im missing something, TW2 may very well be the one. The only ones i can think of are all heavily modded and mods is something that isn't appearing on ps4.

#187 Edited by emgesp (2372 posts) -

@silversix_:

I'm talking on consoles. The Witcher 2 had decent environments but character quality was average at best. Like Assassin's Creed level.

#188 Posted by NVIDIAking (34 posts) -

@CroidX: I wouldn't put Star Citizen up in the "amazing graphics category" just yet tell it's optimized (the animations are pretty poor-buggy as hell atm). Once it's tuned, then that's when I'd put that sucker down for graphics king, tell then it's still in the process of getting the kinks out.

#189 Posted by l34052 (3248 posts) -

Its only a launch game but i thought BF4 looked very good, particlarly the textures and lightning in some levels.

I can only imagine how good game will look in 3-4 years......

#190 Posted by silversix_ (15026 posts) -

@l34052 said:

Its only a launch game but i thought BF4 looked very good, particlarly the textures and lightning in some levels.

I can only imagine how good game will look in 3-4 years......

would've been impressive if it ran at proper resolution and didn't use some shitty post processing AA

#191 Posted by Old_Gooseberry (3804 posts) -

if the human race is still around in 100 years, imagine the games graphics then, probably won't even be able to tell them apart from real life. Some of these pics almost look real even with todays pcs.

#192 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@emgesp: what was the best looking open world game last gen? Unless im missing something, TW2 may very well be the one. The only ones i can think of are all heavily modded and mods is something that isn't appearing on ps4.

TW 2 isn't open world.

#193 Edited by R4gn4r0k (17007 posts) -

Don't forget how 'last gen' games looked:

#194 Posted by MBirdy88 (8450 posts) -

Those screenshots are awful. Infamous is a good looking game though....

#195 Posted by sukraj (23243 posts) -

@selfreflect said:

Yep if you have a PS4 you are in for a real treat

The PS4 is a beast

The amount of power the PS4 offers for the price its at is simply amazing. Just bananas. Power per dollar NOTHING touches the PS4. PS4 is one of the greatest values ever, especially if you add the value of PSN+

Love my PS4

Infamous Second Son is truly stunning. Its open world, and still looks like CGI. Infamous is the best looking game in existence period. I cant even imagine what Uncharted is going to look like.

The future is amazing with PS4. Greatness was there when I bought it and more greatness awaits

IF YOU have am xbone though....then lol...yeah...tough luck

The xbone couldnt even do CROSS gen games at 1080p. Thats just down right pathetic

And Ryse, the game some point to as graphically impressive was extremely linear and scripted to push the graphics it did on the xbone...to boot it was still SUB HD and had frame rate issues

The xbone is proving more and more how under powered it is.

The future LOOKS awful for the xbone. Xbone is a horrible investment

The xbone is insanely under powered. The fact Microsoft had the aduacity to charge 500$ for it is insane and anti-consumer to the core

xbox one meh chana get dig vely nice graphics xbox one look nice vely good yar

#196 Edited by lunar1122 (669 posts) -

even though this game is crap, ive still yet to see a game that has been released beat the graphics..Infamous doesn't even come close.. look at the vegetation, lighting, textures ..

#197 Edited by gpuking (2998 posts) -

@lunar1122

First you posted a bullshot then you have no idea what you're talking about. Infamous renders 12million polygons compared to 3million polys in Crysis 3. Also the gpu particles and character models in Infamous are leagues ahead. They both excel in different places, calling one another a gen better is ignorant at best.

#198 Posted by bezza2011 (2665 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer said:

@bezza2011 said:

@lawlessx said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

The issue I take is that so much emphasis is being put on graphics but a lot of the time the gameplay isn't anything we haven't seen before. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it seems to me that this place is fulled with graphics whores.

exactly the reason why i haven't brought any of the next gen consoles yet. im still waiting for something to impress me in terms of gameplay

I'm trying to work out tho, what else can they do to the gameplay, I mean honestly I think last gen nailed gameplay and the only things i can think of which are going to get better is probably the AI, graphics really are the main focus because that's what really can be pushed further, gameplay wise i think we had it to good last gen.

But don't you think something like The Order, which has a neat setting, should be more than another cinematic action game?? I mean I can enjoy those kinds of games (Dead Space 2 was one of my fav games last gen) but there is definitely an over saturation of these types of games. I'd just like to see something that is more involved.

I'm not looking for something hugely different, but so far it doesn't seem they're really trying too hard.

Hmmmmm I get what your trying to get at, but then the order wouldn't be in that genre, but I think I understand, and I to would love a bit more involvement in things than just shooting things to progress the story, but again it's a whole different genre, I'd like a game with a mix of every genre, I think for me Deus Ex did this the best in the way you approached situations on a small scale but i want bigger and better, I'd love a game which was set in say the orders history but nothing to do with killing things.

#199 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16843 posts) -

@bezza2011 said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@bezza2011 said:

@lawlessx said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

The issue I take is that so much emphasis is being put on graphics but a lot of the time the gameplay isn't anything we haven't seen before. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it seems to me that this place is fulled with graphics whores.

exactly the reason why i haven't brought any of the next gen consoles yet. im still waiting for something to impress me in terms of gameplay

I'm trying to work out tho, what else can they do to the gameplay, I mean honestly I think last gen nailed gameplay and the only things i can think of which are going to get better is probably the AI, graphics really are the main focus because that's what really can be pushed further, gameplay wise i think we had it to good last gen.

But don't you think something like The Order, which has a neat setting, should be more than another cinematic action game?? I mean I can enjoy those kinds of games (Dead Space 2 was one of my fav games last gen) but there is definitely an over saturation of these types of games. I'd just like to see something that is more involved.

I'm not looking for something hugely different, but so far it doesn't seem they're really trying too hard.

Hmmmmm I get what your trying to get at, but then the order wouldn't be in that genre, but I think I understand, and I to would love a bit more involvement in things than just shooting things to progress the story, but again it's a whole different genre, I'd like a game with a mix of every genre, I think for me Deus Ex did this the best in the way you approached situations on a small scale but i want bigger and better, I'd love a game which was set in say the orders history but nothing to do with killing things.

My point is that so far it only seems like this gen is going to be filled with more action games with not a lot of interaction. It's disappointing.

#200 Posted by Kane04 (2069 posts) -

@selfreflect said:

(...)The amount of power the PS4 offers for the price its at is simply amazing. Just bananas. Power per dollar NOTHING touches the PS4. PS4 is one of the greatest values ever, especially if you add the value of PSN+(...)

I agree but still not getting one for a couple of years at least, there are two reasons for that:

1. Every console I bought on early release as died on me, while my 1998 PS1 still works, my early PS2 & PS3 died, and my second PS3 I had to replace the HDD.

2. I have an amazingly long back log to play on the PS3 because I always end up on my PC, I've literally bought games for 60€ that I still haven't touched, and quite frankly I think thats criminal.