What was with the hype over graphics in The Last of Us?

  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Edited by the_bi99man (11028 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@cain006 said:

@farrell2k said:

The graphic are pretty damned good for 2006 hardware.

Agreed but lots of cows were outright saying it could be a contender for best looking game of all time and matched up with stuff like Crysis 3 and Witcher 2. Oh and another thing, Witcher 2 looks nowhere as good as it's hyped up to be if you ask me. Also runs very poorly for how it looks.

Now I didn't believe them but I expected it to at least look good most of the time...

The Witcher 2 is a gorgeous game and it runs flawlessly at max settings for me, what didn't you like about it's graphics?.

I agree TW2 looks great, but he's right about it running terrible for what you get. You run it flawlessly at max settings because your system is overkill beyond overkill for TW2. On lower end systems though (even when they still easily exceed the game's "minimum" or even "recommended" specs), it runs like complete ass. I tried TW2 on my laptop, which exceeds all the minimum requirements, but not by much. I didn't expect it to run well, but I should definitely have been able to manage 30ish fps at mostly low settings. Got 5-12 fps max, at bare minimum settings. That is, every single option at "off" or the lowest it can go, and 800x600 res. At those settings, it looks absolutely terrible, and I've run dozens of games looking far better than that, and got 50+ fps.

#52 Posted by Snugenz (11471 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@cain006 said:

@farrell2k said:

The graphic are pretty damned good for 2006 hardware.

Agreed but lots of cows were outright saying it could be a contender for best looking game of all time and matched up with stuff like Crysis 3 and Witcher 2. Oh and another thing, Witcher 2 looks nowhere as good as it's hyped up to be if you ask me. Also runs very poorly for how it looks.

Now I didn't believe them but I expected it to at least look good most of the time...

The Witcher 2 is a gorgeous game and it runs flawlessly at max settings for me, what didn't you like about it's graphics?.

I agree TW2 looks great, but he's right about it running terrible for what you get. You run it flawlessly at max settings because your system is overkill beyond overkill for TW2. On lower end systems though (even when they still easily exceed the game's "minimum" or even "recommended" specs), it runs like complete ass. I tried TW2 on my laptop, which exceeds all the minimum requirements, but not by much. I didn't expect it to run well, but I should definitely have been able to manage 30ish fps at mostly low settings. Got 5-12 fps max, at bare minimum settings. That is, every single option at "off" or the lowest it can go, and 800x600 res. At those settings, it looks absolutely terrible, and I've run dozens of games looking far better than that, and got 50+ fps.

Well before i ran it on this system, i played it on my 2600, hd6770 rig and it ran at 45ish FPS at highish settings, but yeah i get what you're saying.

#53 Posted by fend_oblivion (6110 posts) -

@Snugenz said:

@cain006 said:

@farrell2k said:

The graphic are pretty damned good for 2006 hardware.

Agreed but lots of cows were outright saying it could be a contender for best looking game of all time and matched up with stuff like Crysis 3 and Witcher 2. Oh and another thing, Witcher 2 looks nowhere as good as it's hyped up to be if you ask me. Also runs very poorly for how it looks.

Now I didn't believe them but I expected it to at least look good most of the time...

The Witcher 2 is a gorgeous game and it runs flawlessly at max settings for me, what didn't you like about it's graphics?.

I agree TW2 looks great, but he's right about it running terrible for what you get. You run it flawlessly at max settings because your system is overkill beyond overkill for TW2. On lower end systems though (even when they still easily exceed the game's "minimum" or even "recommended" specs), it runs like complete ass. I tried TW2 on my laptop, which exceeds all the minimum requirements, but not by much. I didn't expect it to run well, but I should definitely have been able to manage 30ish fps at mostly low settings. Got 5-12 fps max, at bare minimum settings. That is, every single option at "off" or the lowest it can go, and 800x600 res. At those settings, it looks absolutely terrible, and I've run dozens of games looking far better than that, and got 50+ fps.

This. The RED engine is poorly optimized and that configurator is broken. I had to tweak the game's .ini file to save my settings. I hope that The Witcher 3 runs far better than The Witcher 2. And I hope CD Projekt Red makes the game Mantle compatible.

#54 Posted by freedomfreak (38306 posts) -

I thought it looked pretty good.

Only times it didn't was when you were overlooking the city. Draw distance and old hardware do not match.

#55 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

The graphics was fine for the game. I played through the game fine and didn't even notice the bad texture and jaggies because i was into it. The environment was done nicely also, it may not have been mind blowing to notice it yea, but not bad enough to notice it also. I mean unless you was looking for it. I never do look for graphics when i play the game.. if i notice it it's because it's either really bad or really good.

I didn't really get into the game though I'm definitely going to keep playing it. I don't get why they kill Joel's daughter 10 minutes after the game starts... I didn't give two shits about her.

@Snugenz said:

@cain006 said:

Agreed but lots of cows were outright saying it could be a contender for best looking game of all time and matched up with stuff like Crysis 3 and Witcher 2. Oh and another thing, Witcher 2 looks nowhere as good as it's hyped up to be if you ask me. Also runs very poorly for how it looks.

Now I didn't believe them but I expected it to at least look good most of the time...

The Witcher 2 is a gorgeous game and it runs flawlessly at max settings for me, what didn't you like about it's graphics?.

I was running it at mediumish settings. It mostly bothered me that I couldn't get it to run at 60 fps and look good. Stuff also seemed blurry from what I remember - I played it a couple hours like 4 months ago and never played it again. I wish more games would go for a more clean cut look instead of throwing a bunch of effects in. I think Quake Live looks great for example.

#56 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

Definitely one of the best looking games last gen. Better than most PC games, but god of war 3 still holds system graphics king.

#57 Posted by sukraj (21660 posts) -

The graphics looks above average.

#58 Edited by PonchoTaco (1906 posts) -

The game looked pretty good considering the hardware that it was running on. But it wasn't anything amazing. It was a Sony exclusive and Cows lose all logic at that point.

#59 Posted by blamix99 (1550 posts) -

@lostrib said:

also, that game takes forever to freaking load.

you have the same problem of a friend of mine, when he loads his saved game from the menu it takes like 2-3mins, on my ps3 slim(2009) it only takes like 15-20 seconds. i bought my TLOU in UK

#60 Posted by lostrib (31958 posts) -

@blamix99 said:

@lostrib said:

also, that game takes forever to freaking load.

you have the same problem of a friend of mine, when he loads his saved game from the menu it takes like 2-3mins, on my ps3 slim(2009) it only takes like 15-20 seconds. i bought my TLOU in UK

are you running from a disc or a download?

#61 Posted by DirkXXVI (491 posts) -

Visually it was one of those games that people envision when a console is first released. You know all the post we see now about Xbone and PS4 where people say "just wait until developers learn how to program for it." In terms of stuff on PC and the new consoles it's obviously nothing special but as a PS3 game it really is impressive.

It was also a nice touch how they used basically a more powerful version of the in game engine along with motion capture from the voice actors to do the pre rendered cut scenes. Which is why you have a decent amount of jagged edges during gameplay while the cut scenes look really smooth, and dare I say next gen.

#62 Posted by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (178 posts) -

@@@@ All console games (x360 and ps3) are like that with very few exceptions (wipeout HD 1080p 60 fps very good AA).

All the Uncharted series is a jaggy low res mess. Vomit inducing. So is RDR and all the other heavy hitters.

Yet console fantards have been hailing each of them as "the best graphics ever" forever.

What they should be saying is "best graphics ever except for the horrible resolution, textures, aliasing, pop ins, fps, other than that... eh pretty good lookin'"

#63 Posted by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -

incredible visuals with awesome gameplay and story..nuffsaid..anything else is fanboyism

#64 Posted by lostrib (31958 posts) -

@@@@ All console games (x360 and ps3) are like that with very few exceptions (wipeout HD 1080p 60 fps very good AA).

All the Uncharted series is a jaggy low res mess. Vomit inducing. So is RDR and all the other heavy hitters.

Yet console fantards have been hailing each of them as "the best graphics ever" forever.

What they should be saying is "best graphics ever except for the horrible resolution, textures, aliasing, pop ins, fps, other than that... eh pretty good lookin'"

doubt this alt will last long

#65 Posted by Joedgabe (5090 posts) -

@cain006 said:

@Joedgabe said:

The graphics was fine for the game. I played through the game fine and didn't even notice the bad texture and jaggies because i was into it. The environment was done nicely also, it may not have been mind blowing to notice it yea, but not bad enough to notice it also. I mean unless you was looking for it. I never do look for graphics when i play the game.. if i notice it it's because it's either really bad or really good.

I didn't really get into the game though I'm definitely going to keep playing it. I don't get why they kill Joel's daughter 10 minutes after the game starts... I didn't give two shits about her.

You'll see latter on how much having his daughter kill affects his actions.

#66 Posted by lostrib (31958 posts) -

incredible visuals with awesome gameplay and story..nuffsaid..anything else is fanboyism

fanboyism right there

#67 Posted by Dire_Weasel (15892 posts) -

I was actually incredibly impressed with TLoU's graphics, and I thought they were some of the best of the generation. Also, it has, hands down, the best depiction of whiskey in a video game. :)

#68 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@@@@ All console games (x360 and ps3) are like that with very few exceptions (wipeout HD 1080p 60 fps very good AA).

All the Uncharted series is a jaggy low res mess. Vomit inducing. So is RDR and all the other heavy hitters.

Yet console fantards have been hailing each of them as "the best graphics ever" forever.

What they should be saying is "best graphics ever except for the horrible resolution, textures, aliasing, pop ins, fps, other than that... eh pretty good lookin'"

Some good jelly right here.

#69 Edited by Pray_to_me (2738 posts) -

On an 8 year old console? Looks pretty good to me. Maybe your eyes are shit.

#70 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4320 posts) -

I thought the Uncharted games looked better. But it was still a good looking game.

#71 Edited by heretrix (37253 posts) -

It was ok. Did it change the way I view 3rd person action games? Not really I'm more concerned about actual gameplay over dramatic cutscenes. The game has the same problem Uncharted has; Great cinematic quality and average gameplay. the pacing can be a bit off and there sections of the game that make you want to shoot your Playstation.

#72 Edited by Zophar87 (4337 posts) -

If you're focusing on the graphics in TLoU then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

#73 Posted by -Unreal- (24477 posts) -

Looks about what I'd expect on the hardware specs. The over abundance of praise is mostly from fanboys.

#74 Edited by Cranler (7854 posts) -

@Warp_2567 said:

You do know TLOU was created in 18 months right? With such a small window of work, it looks really damn good.

Development began in 2009. Why do so many people think a studio can only work on one game at a time?

#75 Edited by DirkXXVI (491 posts) -
@Zophar87 said:

If you're focusing on the graphics in TLoU then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

Lol, I was typing virtually the exact same thing before I saw your post. The industry can use all the TLOU's it can get. Luckily the game was very successful selling 3.4 million units in 3 weeks despite being a console exclusive so theres sure to be more games.

#76 Posted by Zophar87 (4337 posts) -

@DirkXXVI said:
@Zophar87 said:

If you're focusing on the graphics in TLoU then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

Lol, I was typing virtually the exact same thing before I saw your post. The industry can use all the TLOU's it can get. Luckily the game was very successful selling 3.4 million units in 3 weeks despite being a console exclusive so theres sure to be more games.

It's so stupid how someone will go "BUT T3H GRAFIX" at a game with a story that good.

#77 Edited by Cranler (7854 posts) -

The big problem with the graphics is that the beginning looks quite good, far better than any other console game. When I was walking around the house before the explosions began I couldnt believe how good it looked. I was under the impression that the entire game would look like that.

Then the games gets a severe graphical downgrade when you go on the first mission and it's a major bummer.

#78 Posted by leandrro (773 posts) -

@cain006: its a ps3 exclusive

so it cant be compared to the same game on other systems

so nobody can say and prove ps3 visuals look poor in comparison to pc or x360 or even wii u

so all the fanboys gather there and start saying its the best looking game ever, till they start believing this lie themselves

p.s. i have a ps3,

p.s.2 i like uncharted, its a great game but the visuals are surely its down side

#79 Posted by AppleFan1991 (3022 posts) -

@cain006 said:

I picked up that PS3 black friday bundle with The Last of Us and Arkham Origins and I gotta say I am very disappointed with the graphics in The Last of Us. It seems like there's hardly any AA if any at all, there's a lot of bad textures, and the blur bothers me. The shadows look good though.

It shocks me that people were saying it actually looked better than PC games... Even multiplat games running on my 460 look way better than it.

I personally think KZ3 and KZ2 are still the best looking games on the ps3.

i personally thought Uncharted 2 and 3 were far superior in graphics to TLOU.

#80 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -
@Zophar87 said:

@DirkXXVI said:
@Zophar87 said:

If you're focusing on the graphics in TLoU then you're doing it wrong. Very wrong.

Lol, I was typing virtually the exact same thing before I saw your post. The industry can use all the TLOU's it can get. Luckily the game was very successful selling 3.4 million units in 3 weeks despite being a console exclusive so theres sure to be more games.

It's so stupid how someone will go "BUT T3H GRAFIX" at a game with a story that good.

I just started it. And there's nothing wrong with having a discussion about graphics. I didn't even mention anything about the quality of the game, just the graphics.

#81 Posted by Kid_Black_Star (485 posts) -

@Pray_to_me: What is your set up like? Because mine looks like mud compared to your Mona Lisa.

#82 Posted by VanDammFan (4210 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@VanDammFan said:

incredible visuals with awesome gameplay and story..nuffsaid..anything else is fanboyism

fanboyism right there

i would say more like truthism..you must have eye issues..feelsbadbrah

#83 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

@Pray_to_me: Those pictures just prove my point. Yeah it looks great for an old console but it's nowhere near as good as people were saying it was.

#84 Edited by lundy86_4 (42687 posts) -

The graphics were far from groundbreaking... There were some excellent spots, and some shoddy ones. TLoU really stood out in art direction, and I often find that to be far more important.

#85 Edited by lostrib (31958 posts) -

@VanDammFan: which is why I wear corrective lenses which gives me 20/20 vision or better

#86 Edited by lazerface216 (7449 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@lazerface216 said:

it's not just about pixels, the art direction and just pure attention to detail is top notch in the last of us. some parts look better than others but overall i think the game looks great.

the art direction may be good, as are the animations, but the actual graphics are not that great

i disagree, i think they look great, and i'd say most people would agree with me.

#87 Posted by lostrib (31958 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@lazerface216 said:

it's not just about pixels, the art direction and just pure attention to detail is top notch in the last of us. some parts look better than others but overall i think the game looks great.

the art direction may be good, as are the animations, but the actual graphics are not that great

i disagree, i think they look great, and i'd say most people would agree with me.

there are low res textures and aliasing everywhere when you actually play the game. The in game cutscenes do look nice, and the overall attention to detail is great. But it's not graphics king or best graphics of all time like some people have been saying.

#88 Posted by Flubbbs (2840 posts) -

who said it looked better than pc games? they should be rooted up and banned

#89 Posted by blamix99 (1550 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@blamix99 said:

@lostrib said:

also, that game takes forever to freaking load.

you have the same problem of a friend of mine, when he loads his saved game from the menu it takes like 2-3mins, on my ps3 slim(2009) it only takes like 15-20 seconds. i bought my TLOU in UK

are you running from a disc or a download?

disc

#90 Posted by AAllxxjjnn (19988 posts) -

Interiors looked great. Exteriors looked weak for the most part.

#91 Edited by Messiahbolical- (5535 posts) -

I'm still way more impressed with The Last Of Us graphics than I am any game I've played maxed out on my GTX 770(for example: Crysis 1/2/3, Far Cry 2/3, Assassin's Creed 4, BF4, etc). I haven't been impressed with the top-tier of what PC gaming has to offer. Sure, the games may have more particle effects, higher res textures, better texture filtering, higher quality AA, better physics, etc but none of that stuff is really all that impressive anymore if the game itself sucks. A lot of the art direction, storyline, and gameplay behind the best looking PC games is crap(aside from FC3 which has great art direction on top of a great, well optimized graphics engine).

Art Style/Animation/Cinematics(+ most importantly GAMEPLAY) > Amount of pixels being rendered

Also a lot of games on PC are unoptimized as f***. For instance, Crysis 3. One of the biggest jokes of a game I've ever played. Arguably doesn't look much better than Crysis 1-2 yet runs 10x crappier with frame rates dropping left and right. My old Radeon HD 6770 that I bought for $85 in like 2011 ran Crysis 1 better than my $330 GTX 770 SC ACX that I bought 2 weeks ago runs Crysis 3. All for what? Just to play some of the worst single player FPS gameplay you'll ever play, with terrible AI bots that you can just run right past, uninteresting characters, and a storyline that you most likely wont even pay attention to. In this game it is possible to literally just sprint your way through levels not shooting at anyone and complete entire levels.

#92 Posted by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (178 posts) -

@k1ngd0m4g3rul3z said:

@@@@ All console games (x360 and ps3) are like that with very few exceptions (wipeout HD 1080p 60 fps very good AA).

All the Uncharted series is a jaggy low res mess. Vomit inducing. So is RDR and all the other heavy hitters.

Yet console fantards have been hailing each of them as "the best graphics ever" forever.

What they should be saying is "best graphics ever except for the horrible resolution, textures, aliasing, pop ins, fps, other than that... eh pretty good lookin'"

Some good jelly right here.

Jelly for what?

Or is that just a knee-jerk comment when reading criticism to whatever game/Platform/studio you happen to like?

#93 Posted by SOedipus (6758 posts) -

I was impressed for a console game.

#94 Edited by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

@cain006 said:

I picked up that PS3 black friday bundle with The Last of Us and Arkham Origins and I gotta say I am very disappointed with the graphics in The Last of Us. It seems like there's hardly any AA if any at all, there's a lot of bad textures, and the blur bothers me. The shadows look good though.

It shocks me that people were saying it actually looked better than PC games... Even multiplat games running on my 460 look way better than it.

If you seriously believed that then you're just as much a moron as the people who were saying these things. For a last gen console game it looks really good... for a last gen console game. Of course that's not really saying anything because all last gen console games look ass.

#95 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -
#96 Posted by foxhound_fox (86993 posts) -
@Blabadon said:

It's a Sony exclusive.

This 100%. Cows hype something to hell and back until either it comes out or media is released that diminishes expectations. And when it flops, they damage control like fiends and deny whichever place gives their exclusive the worst score. Flip-flopping between sources like bullfrogs on lilypads.

#97 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

@Pray_to_me:

I'm pretty sure those are bullshots. I don't remember the game looking nearly that crisp or smooth.

#98 Posted by MlauTheDaft (3023 posts) -

Your first mistake was taking cows words seriously or like they had any merit

Are you implying that any of we system warriors have merit?

#99 Edited by Ripsaw1994 (84 posts) -

It's a pretty ugly game.

#100 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

@cain006 said:

I picked up that PS3 black friday bundle with The Last of Us and Arkham Origins and I gotta say I am very disappointed with the graphics in The Last of Us. It seems like there's hardly any AA if any at all, there's a lot of bad textures, and the blur bothers me. The shadows look good though.

It shocks me that people were saying it actually looked better than PC games... Even multiplat games running on my 460 look way better than it.

If you seriously believed that then you're just as much a moron as the people who were saying these things. For a last gen console game it looks really good... for a last gen console game. Of course that's not really saying anything because all last gen console games look ass.

I didn't believe that, I just expected more from supposedly the best looking game on the consoles.