It's an old discussion, one i've had several times in my small ammount of time here.OP didn't state if:
- technically the best looking game.
- artistically the best looking game.
So the entire discussion up to this point is proof that ignorance exists. Because technically the answer is "NO". And artistically the answer is "SUBJECTIVE".
Refreshing to see that in Sony camp, RT is important after all.
I think that's his point. Yes it's been talked about SINCE it was confirmed to have the hardware. Back before it was confirmed, it wasn't important, and as you yourself stated... Not really talked about.That's not new at all. It's always been talked about since it was confirmed to have RT hardware. Although what's being proven is that some forms of RT are mode noticeable than others. And that sometimes the hit to performance isn't acceptable for some people. Like loosing half the framerate just to enable it for example.
Edit: Not talking about Insomniac because they offer RT with both 30FPS and 60FPS.
I agree with you. The environmental scans are very nice and look very pretty, but there's a lot of other graphical issues that many are ignoring. And honestly, I just didn't (and don't) want to point that out and hamper someone's excitement regarding the game, which I am also excited to play later this year, by the way. These games are fun and look very good!I would even go further and say that all it brings over it's predecessors are higher resolution. I have problems with understanding the high praise some give this game graphically.
$1200 isn't a lot for a rig...
Even real life sea looks like shit compared to Sea of Thieves water tech.The sea in one of the last levels looks like shit compared to sea of thieves water tech for example.
As a person that's sailed all over the world I can confirm this.Even real life sea looks like shit compared to Sea of Thieves water tech.
Isn't this thread about best looking game? Not sure why you must always make everything about "Xbox vs PS", that's kinda weird honestly....They scream Flight Sim, but actually they only will try that "game" for 2 weeks and nobody will care about it anymore on consoles.
Flight Sim is a hardcore niche PC sim and i wouldn't even call it a game.
Well, your wrong...
Realistic has nothing to do with better graphics...
So far you are comparing FS on pc because on consoles it will not look better then the PC version, and Forza really? I think people already clearly said that in this artstyle, there is no competition and Xbots again with their not even released games lol.
That's what I was thinking. Flight Sim is great in the air but buildings and stuff up close aren't that great.The problem I have with Flight Simulator is that it looks fantastic from a distance, up close it falls apart. That being said, the fact of the matter is that Ratchet is out now and playable. FS and FH5 are not out until later this year and jury will be out if they will look better than Ratchet when its all said and done on the Series X.
R&C looks fantastic even when compairing to the maxed out FS on PC.... that says something.
Indeed, an achievement is not one that looks great part of the time. It’s about having consistency and polish throughout.That's what I was thinking. Flight Sim is great in the air but buildings and stuff up close aren't that great.
Isn't this thread about best looking game? Not sure why you must always make everything about "Xbox vs PS", that's kinda weird honestly....
Who cares if people are talking about playing FS2020 on a PC, Xbox, a smart fridge, etc? If the game objectively is the better technical feat, who cares? You don't need to have to try and move the goal posts off the entire playing field.
No, I am a PC gamer. Don't really care about either consoles performance in that thread.Says the one that started PS vs Xbox in the UE demo thread and And couldn't let that go. But again can't really say Horizon has the best graphics and i wouldn't count FS so...
That's the reason why i said that FS is focused on a few parts that makes the "game" pretty.
No, I am a PC gamer. Don't really care about either consoles performance in that thread.
Both horizon and fs2020 are pushing more next gen tech than R&C though. And they have completely different styles, so it's not really a good comparison, although the facts still remain: Horizon and fs2020 objectively look more true to real life and have much more going on screen.
Absolutely. Nothing else comes close at the moment.
Why do you want building upclose with detail when you're on a plane?It really begs the question.Indeed, an achievement is not one that looks great part of the time. It’s about having consistency and polish throughout.
Native 4K alone means absulutely nothing. There are so many other things sooo much more important than your ""native 4K"", a true waste of resources.It's not even native 4k it scales dynamically, and 60fps mode has considerable cutbacks, resolution being hit the hardest.
I think that's his point. Yes it's been talked about SINCE it was confirmed to have the hardware. Back before it was confirmed, it wasn't important, and as you yourself stated... Not really talked about.
?? Compared to the sheer amount of geometry, large scale environments, physics of multiple vehicles, weather systems, etc in Horizon? Vs a platformer with teleporting and fast loading? You might prefer the art direction of R&C, which looks great, but technically speaking, there are other games that do so much more.Well this is not true or you're trying to say something else. But in Ratchet a lot more is happing on screen then in FS or even Horizon.
Sounds like the old argument for racing games. Why do you need 3D trees and roadside detail when you just fly past it at 120mph?!?Why do you want building upclose with detail when you're on a plane?It really begs the question.
The physics engine on that thing is enough to shit on any game present on the market. If we're going to evaluate by tech merits so let's do so, if we're just going to throw stuff in the air and hope it sticks, then well.....
But it does make everything better when it comes to lighting, reflections etc. because, well, it's accurate. You think if there as a possibility to have an accurate fluid dynamics engine on games, they would be using aproximations? Point is, to many people RT was a buzzword, not it's not.Actually what was talked about was how the PS5 would be at a severe disadvantage due to lacking dedicated RT hardware. In one shape or another RT was talked about even though the PS5 was rumored to be lacking it compared to the XSX.
But looking at games today RT is being used for all sorts of things. It certainly is important but it's not the only thing that matters. Insomniac has proven that things beside RT matters in their games. RT does help help visuals and sounds but without the other work that they did their games would seem less impressive. Like the fur which is talked about a lot isn't RT for example.
RT is just one piece of the puzzle so to say.
I don't think there are any planes that can just stop in the air though... Even if you wanted to just take a closer look at the top of a building...Sounds like the old argument for racing games. Why do you need 3D trees and roadside detail when you just fly past it at 120mph?!?
It’s for when you do stop, or get close. The illusion breaks down, the shine is dulled.
?? Compared to the sheer amount of geometry, large scale environments, physics of multiple vehicles, weather systems, etc in Horizon? Vs a platformer with teleporting and fast loading? You might prefer the art direction of R&C, which looks great, but technically speaking, there are other games that do so much more.
While FS is heavy, most of the time there is nothing happening on your screen with all kinds of particle effects, explosions etc. Horizon comes close to Ratchet when it comes to "much more going on screen", but Ratchet would be more demanding with all these effects, particles, explosions enemies and RT on top of it.
So you stop the plane in the air and look down. I didn't mention racing games, also the scale is completely, by a really wide margin, different. Sounds like some of you need to play around with a GIS software to understand the scale difference.Sounds like the old argument for racing games. Why do you need 3D trees and roadside detail when you just fly past it at 120mph?!?
It’s for when you do stop, or get close. The illusion breaks down, the shine is dulled.
then just imagine whats possible on the other, more powerful, hardware out thereAnd developers said they only touched tip of the iceberg of what is possible with PS5 hardware.
What if one wants to land a Sesna on a road near a MacDonalds? Does the game prohibit you from having such flexibility, an invisible wall? That would be even worse.I don't think there are any planes that can just stop in the air though... Even if you wanted to just take a closer look at the top of a building...
It's a flying game. Not one in real life is going to just block off traffic after landing their plane in the road, just to get McDonald's.... Further more, the whole point is to be FLYING, so you don't need to be getting that close to buildings, as you wouldn't in real life.What if one wants to land a Sesna on a road near a MacDonalds? Does the game prohibit you from having such flexibility, an invisible wall? That would be even worse.
Doing anything that comes to mind in an open world is the 1st checkbox for me.
Sorry, no trophies for shortcomings in any product or art. On balance things might be just peachy, but polish and quality are what define the final stretch and differentiate the winners from the wannabes.So you stop the plane in the air and look down. I didn't mention racing games, also the scale is completely, by a really wide margin, different. Sounds like some of you need to play around with a GIS software to understand the scale difference.
For the record, i do think Ratchet, alongside with Metro and RDR 2 are the better looking games now. The only reason i don't mention FS is because what that game does on a level of dynamic systems, like the clouds, aerodynamics etc. is on a whole different level and of course, it will have repercussions on the graphics for example microdetail.
So people think looking out at a slightly curved wing reflecting one light source off it is more impressive????? while underneath you have a very low detail render of the world...... WOW.
But it does make everything better when it comes to lighting, reflections etc. because, well, it's accurate. You think if there as a possibility to have an accurate fluid dynamics engine on games, they would be using aproximations? Point is, to many people RT was a buzzword, not it's not.
Yeah like i said, no need for abundant detail on the roadside of a racing game. It’s purpose is to race fast. Same same. Accepting one, is accepting the other.It's a flying game. Not one in real life is going to just block off traffic after landing their plane in the road, just to get McDonald's.... Further more, the whole point is to be FLYING, so you don't need to be getting that close to buildings, as you wouldn't in real life.
Come on man, it's almost like you are missing out on the fact that it's like the entire world at scale, in high quality replica of earth and all of it's buildings and what not. Can the entire R&C explorable areas even account for a single state in America, in sheer size and scale? More or less a large city?