• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Last of Us PS4 remaster - direct screengrabs *spoilers*

D

daxter01

8/8/2010 Blackace was here
Fire looks a lot better now
jfkgfhdyjt7.jpg
Click to expand...
 
M

Majanew

Banned
Blue Volt said:
I think a lot of people are looking back at the PS3 version with rose tinted glasses, although this is quite a shitty, compressed screen.

PS3


PS4
Click to expand...

A Youtube capture scaled to 1802x1021? lol

I can go to Youtube and make the best looking games/CG look like that.
 
A

ascii42

Member
Lord Error said:
So they just moved it then? It's touching the TV stand in PS4 screen so it would have to be visible in PS3 screen if it was in the same spot.
Click to expand...

It's not touching the TV stand, looks to be about a foot or so between the rug and TV stand in both the PS3 and PS4 screens.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Blue Volt said:
I think a lot of people are looking back at the PS3 version with rose tinted glasses, although this is quite a shitty, compressed screen.

PS3


PS4
Click to expand...

This can't be what the PS3 version looked like. Did you upscale it to 1080p?
 
L

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
jett said:
Honestly the IQ is about what I expected, maybe it could be better since it's a PS3 port. Infamous has better IQ. Just pointing out the usual PR bullshots deception that continually goes on and poking fun at the people that get fooled by them time and time again.

Lookit, it happened again just now!

A PNG won't help the jaggies on the furniture. If anything it would make them clearer.
Click to expand...
I think this looks kind of the same as infamous IQ-wise. Whatever they're using seems to resolve lil 95% of the edges, and then it fails on some like the screen you posted. I have to note that I looked at like 20 screens before you posted that and couldn't notice any aliasing that was obviously standing out. Also, keep in mind that share function makes screenshots blurrier than they appear on the screen. Best screens of Infamous always came from people with a capture card.
 
I

i-Lo

Member
ND are really getting good at replicating skin (sub surface scattering). I think the lack of most noticeable differences in screens (the true gulf in performance would be noticed in motion) is a testament to how ND pushed TLoU on PS3.
 
E

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Gentleman Jack said:
Watch Dogs ate shit when objects in headlights didn't cast shadows on PS4/XBox One. This game won't be immune from the same level of dissection.
Click to expand...

Perhaps due to miscommunication from Sony and Naughty Dog, or simply unfounded expectations from fans and the NAUGHTY GODS GRAPHICS chorus sung (I don't know which as I haven't followed PR around this game closely), there does appear to be a misunderstanding as to what the TLoU Remaster is and what it isn't. It's a port, a last generation game, spruced up in framerate, texture quality, and overall rendering IQ (eg: shadows) on more modern hardware. It's not a remake or reimagining, and not an overhaul in technology. Maybe distinctly cross generation games like Ground Zeroes, Destiny, Battlefield, and all that have given folk the false impression that Naughty Dog was going to deliver a game that was clearly technologically leaps and bounds over the PS3 build despite its last generation origins. Fact of the matter is The Last of Us is not a PlayStation 4 game, and the technology built into the engine was not for PlayStation 4 hardware. The Last of Us is, through and through, in almost every respect, a game made for the PlayStation 3. And here it is ported, running at a higher resolution, better framerate, and with cleaner textures.

The difference is, in my opinion, huge. But I come from a culture of PC gaming where resolution increases and better texture filtering go a long, long way to improve a game's image quality and presentation. The Last of Us is a gorgeous game, but these screenshots even in their compressed .jpg glory show a pretty fucking obvious leap in clarity and image quality. It's sharper, finer, more detailed, and overall in my opinion significantly more pleasing on the eye.

But it's still The Last of Us. That's what you're paying for: The Last of Us 1920x1080. Not The Last of Us: Remake.

EDIT: Pre-rendered cutscenes probably aren't the best example. There should be an increase in clarity going from 720p to 1080p cutscenes, but the assets themselves are still fundamentally the same and not rendered in real time.
 
J

jett

D-Member
Unless I'm mistaken, seems they're using higher quality AA in their pre-rendered cut-scenes still, just like on the PS3. Hopefully it is true that UC4 uses real-time cut-scenes, for uniformity.
60sobds3k2l.jpg
Click to expand...


BigTnaples said:
Doesn't make it a valid comparison. I was speaking more to the fact that it is the PS4 share function, which we all know shits on IQ, even when using a thumb drive.



And there are quite a few jaggy free or nearly jaggy free shits even amongst these. That would lead me to believe, that much like in every other game ever made, TLoU remastered's AA solution works better in some situations more than others.
Click to expand...

It's an absolutely valid comparison. You will not get supersampled-level IQ in this game like those PR screens showed, end of story.
 
L

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
ascii42 said:
It's not touching the TV stand, looks to be about a foot or so between the rug and TV stand in both the PS3 and PS4 screens.
Click to expand...
Oh wow, I see it now. It somehow seems like PS4 rug stands out more I guess because you can see that it's a bit wavy.
 
T

Tratorn

Member
Finally my eyes won't hurt anymore, when playing TLOU. ;)
Dat image quality upgrade was so much needed. TLOU just was too much for the old lady.
 
B

BruiserBear

Banned
Looks like the PS3 version in 1080p. One of the best looking PS3 games ever, so it's certainly not bad looking. Just not a technical showcase.
 
BigTnaples

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
EatChildren said:
Perhaps due to miscommunication from Sony and Naughty Dog, or simply unfounded expectations from fans and the NAUGHTY GODS GRAPHICS chorus sung (I don't know which as I haven't followed PR around this game closely), there does appear to be a misunderstanding as to what the TLoU Remaster is and what it isn't. It's a port, a last generation game, spruced up in framerate, texture quality, and overall rendering IQ (eg: shadows) on more modern hardware. It's not a remake or reimagining, and not an overhaul in technology. Maybe distinctly cross generation games like Ground Zeroes, Destiny, Battlefield, and all that have given folk the false impression that Naughty Dog was going to deliver a game that was clearly technologically leaps and bounds over the PS3 build despite its last generation origins. Fact of the matter is The Last of Us is not a PlayStation 4 game, and the technology built into the engine was not for PlayStation 4 hardware. The Last of Us is, through and through, in almost every respect, a game made for the PlayStation 3. And here it is ported, running at a higher resolution, better framerate, and with cleaner textures.

The difference is, in my opinion, huge. But I come from a culture of PC gaming where resolution increases and better texture filtering go a long, long way to improve a game's image quality and presentation. The Last of Us is a gorgeous game, but these screenshots even in their compressed .jpg glory show a pretty fucking obvious leap in clarity and image quality. It's sharper, finer, more detailed, and overall in my opinion significantly more pleasing on the eye.

But it's still The Last of Us. That's what you're paying for: The Last of Us 1920x1080. Not The Last of Us: Remake.
Click to expand...



Indeed.


This is why the name remaster was a perfect title for this.


Much like a movie, remastered with higher quality video and audio.


Rather than a reboot or remake, or directors cut, with added or altered effects.



This is the PS3 game the Last of Us, Remastered in 1080p@60fps for Ps4.

Much like "The Wizard of Oz" was Remastered for Bluray. Same movie, added crispness and clarity.
 
M

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Not sure if I expect any major differences in the cutscenes other than resolution. They're prerendered so texture quality,shadow etc should be great on PS3, and framerate won't show up in screenshots anyway. Biggest difference should be during gameplay if they're using cutscene models for Joel and Ellie etc. they wouldn't bother making 'higher than cutscene quality' models for the new cutscenes.
 
C

Chinner

Banned
EatChildren said:
Perhaps due to miscommunication from Sony and Naughty Dog, or simply unfounded expectations from fans and the NAUGHTY GODS GRAPHICS chorus sung (I don't know which as I haven't followed PR around this game closely), there does appear to be a misunderstanding as to what the TLoU Remaster is and what it isn't. It's a port, a last generation game, spruced up in framerate, texture quality, and overall rendering IQ (eg: shadows) on more modern hardware. It's not a remake or reimagining, and not an overhaul in technology. Maybe distinctly cross generation games like Ground Zeroes, Destiny, Battlefield, and all that have given folk the false impression that Naughty Dog was going to deliver a game that was clearly technologically leaps and bounds over the PS3 build despite its last generation origins. Fact of the matter is The Last of Us is not a PlayStation 4 game, and the technology built into the engine was not for PlayStation 4 hardware. The Last of Us is, through and through, in almost every respect, a game made for the PlayStation 3. And here it is ported, running at a higher resolution, better framerate, and with cleaner textures.

The difference is, in my opinion, huge. But I come from a culture of PC gaming where resolution increases and better texture filtering go a long, long way to improve a game's image quality and presentation. The Last of Us is a gorgeous game, but these screenshots even in their compressed .jpg glory show a pretty fucking obvious leap in clarity and image quality. It's sharper, finer, more detailed, and overall in my opinion significantly more pleasing on the eye.

But it's still The Last of Us. That's what you're paying for: The Last of Us 1920x1080. Not The Last of Us: Remake.

EDIT: Pre-rendered cutscenes probably aren't the best example. There should be an increase in clarity going from 720p to 1080p cutscenes, but the assets themselves are still fundamentally the same and not rendered in real time.
Click to expand...

good post. where people really expecting something more? its the TLOU, but at 1080p, 60fps and a few other benefits. 1080p and 60fps is huge.
 
H

Hugstable

Banned
I could give a shit if it looks any better or not, all I want is Last of Us in a great framerate! Only another week! (Goes back to staring at Amazon Pre-order). Also what's with all these Uncharted 4 comparisons? I mean seriously the game is awhile out and we shouldn't be basing how we think the final game is gonna look just from the reveal trailer. It may look worse or even better, and I highly doubt we should be basing graphical comparisons of a game that is maybe over a year out. About as silly as Digital Foundry doing graphics breakdowns of trailers -____-
 
L

Love Deterrence

Member
BlackFlip said:
I guess I can see why they aren't exactly showing it off.
Click to expand...

Yeah. They should be ashamed of this atrocity. Looks like a PS2 -- no, no -- a PSX game. I thought Naughty Dog was a good studio. I have heard so many great things about them through GAF and other outlets. Guess I won't be giving them my money, now. Will I?
All of it.
Thank you for exposing them for the con artists they are.

EatChildren said:
Perhaps due to miscommunication from Sony and Naughty Dog, or simply unfounded expectations from fans and the NAUGHTY GODS GRAPHICS chorus sung (I don't know which as I haven't followed PR around this game closely), there does appear to be a misunderstanding as to what the TLoU Remaster is and what it isn't. It's a port, a last generation game, spruced up in framerate, texture quality, and overall rendering IQ (eg: shadows) on more modern hardware. It's not a remake or reimagining, and not an overhaul in technology. Maybe distinctly cross generation games like Ground Zeroes, Destiny, Battlefield, and all that have given folk the false impression that Naughty Dog was going to deliver a game that was clearly technologically leaps and bounds over the PS3 build despite its last generation origins. Fact of the matter is The Last of Us is not a PlayStation 4 game, and the technology built into the engine was not for PlayStation 4 hardware. The Last of Us is, through and through, in almost every respect, a game made for the PlayStation 3. And here it is ported, running at a higher resolution, better framerate, and with cleaner textures.

The difference is, in my opinion, huge. But I come from a culture of PC gaming where resolution increases and better texture filtering go a long, long way to improve a game's image quality and presentation. The Last of Us is a gorgeous game, but these screenshots even in their compressed .jpg glory show a pretty fucking obvious leap in clarity and image quality. It's sharper, finer, more detailed, and overall in my opinion significantly more pleasing on the eye.

But it's still The Last of Us. That's what you're paying for: The Last of Us 1920x1080. Not The Last of Us: Remake.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
I

i-Lo

Member
Are they cutscenes being rendered real time or are just being replayed back like it was with the PS3 version?
 
P

Primethius

Banned
I don't think they're was a PR miscommunication. I think anyone that followed the game even remotely since its initial announcement knew that the biggest upgrades were going to be the game being rendered natively at 1080p and at 60 fps and maybe some slight improvements here and there.

I feel anybody that expected current-gen graphical prowess for the port (in terms of textures, model work, lighting) was expecting far too much.
 
Huggers

Huggers

Member
koshunter said:
I don't think they're was a PR miscommunication. I think anyone that followed the game even remotely since its initial announcement knew that the biggest upgrades were going to be the game being rendered natively at 1080p and at 60 fps and maybe some slight improvements here and there.

I feel anybody that expected current-gen graphical prowess for the port (in terms of textures, model work, lighting) was expecting far too much.
Click to expand...

I think I just hoped for something in line with the Tomb Raider remaster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom